-
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!
If you are not a Calvinist or an Arminian ...
- Thread starter Pastor Larry
- Start date
Daniel David
New Member
Primitive Baptist, I struggled with this one awhile ago. I have come to the following conclusion.
God loves everybody in a general way. He provides the rain that grows crops for all people to eat, He doesn't kill off the animals, etc.
God specifically loves with an everlasting love His own. He causes everything to work together for their good.
God hates the sinful and His holiness and lordship are rejected by the lost.
---
I love all children. I hurt for the aborted and abused. I grieve for the starving.
I love specifically my own son with a special love. I do everything I can for his wellbeing, including providing, playing, and disciplining him.
Love can be general and specific at the same time.
God loves everybody in a general way. He provides the rain that grows crops for all people to eat, He doesn't kill off the animals, etc.
God specifically loves with an everlasting love His own. He causes everything to work together for their good.
God hates the sinful and His holiness and lordship are rejected by the lost.
---
I love all children. I hurt for the aborted and abused. I grieve for the starving.
I love specifically my own son with a special love. I do everything I can for his wellbeing, including providing, playing, and disciplining him.
Love can be general and specific at the same time.
J
jmbertrand
Guest
The way the debate has been traditionally formulated, to reject one side is to affirm the other. That is certainly the case with election. It is either conditional or unconditional. To argue that one is neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian, one needs to put forward a third view of election. I'll come back to this, but in the meantime this thread raises an ironic side-issue.
There are plenty of people on this board willing to accept the Calvinist label, in spite of the fact that in most Baptist circles it's the equivalent of putting on a t-shirt emblazoned with a bright red target. There are not many people on this board willing to accept the Arminian label, in spite of the fact that in most Baptist circles it's the equivalent of casting your vote for the establishment party (provided you don't go consistently Arminian and deny perseverence). Given the fact that this is a board devoted to the Calvinist/Arminian debate, that is rather strange.
Why are so many people reluctant to admit that they hold to a modified form of the Arminian position? If you believe the clear teaching of Scripture is that a) men can choose freely to accept or reject the Gospel, b) that election is based on God's prior knowledge of what choice each man will make, c) that Christ died to save all men and not just the elect, d) that some of those for whom Christ died will be lost, e) but that those who do accept the Gospel are from that point forward saved without risk of damnation, then you are an Arminian who has modified the traditional system on the final point.
Of course, because of the sincerity of your conviction, you can declare without qualms that you are a Bible-believer, Biblicist, etc., but so can consistent Calvinists and consistent Arminians. To say that you are a biblicist is to say that you believe the Bible teaches what you believe. So does everyone else in the debate. How helpful to understanding is it to make this assertion, refuse the Arminian label, yet argue an Arminian position? Perhaps it is not dishonest, but it is certainly not transparent.
If a Calvinist (or for that matter, a consistent Arminian) suggests that you do not fully understand the issues, do not take offense. Rather than insulting you, he is giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming that you do not realize that you are saying "I'm not an Arminian" while you argue for Arminian doctrine.
Is it possible that neither the Arminian system nor the Calvinist system "explains it all." Since neither sets out to do so, it is quite likely. But if you are saying that neither the Calvinist view of election nor the Arminian view of election is sufficient, then it would be helpful if you could point to a third view of election. I am guessing (forgive me) that most people on this board who deny the Arminian label will point to the Arminian view of election as the self-evident teaching of Scripture, rather than some third way. If so, why not call it by its traditional name? At the risk of imputing to Pastor Larry motives he did not have, I suspect that is the question behind the question....
Mark
PS -- Perhaps a better name for the board would be the "Calvinist/Non-Calvinist Debate," since it would be easier for people to accept that label.
There are plenty of people on this board willing to accept the Calvinist label, in spite of the fact that in most Baptist circles it's the equivalent of putting on a t-shirt emblazoned with a bright red target. There are not many people on this board willing to accept the Arminian label, in spite of the fact that in most Baptist circles it's the equivalent of casting your vote for the establishment party (provided you don't go consistently Arminian and deny perseverence). Given the fact that this is a board devoted to the Calvinist/Arminian debate, that is rather strange.
Why are so many people reluctant to admit that they hold to a modified form of the Arminian position? If you believe the clear teaching of Scripture is that a) men can choose freely to accept or reject the Gospel, b) that election is based on God's prior knowledge of what choice each man will make, c) that Christ died to save all men and not just the elect, d) that some of those for whom Christ died will be lost, e) but that those who do accept the Gospel are from that point forward saved without risk of damnation, then you are an Arminian who has modified the traditional system on the final point.
Of course, because of the sincerity of your conviction, you can declare without qualms that you are a Bible-believer, Biblicist, etc., but so can consistent Calvinists and consistent Arminians. To say that you are a biblicist is to say that you believe the Bible teaches what you believe. So does everyone else in the debate. How helpful to understanding is it to make this assertion, refuse the Arminian label, yet argue an Arminian position? Perhaps it is not dishonest, but it is certainly not transparent.
If a Calvinist (or for that matter, a consistent Arminian) suggests that you do not fully understand the issues, do not take offense. Rather than insulting you, he is giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming that you do not realize that you are saying "I'm not an Arminian" while you argue for Arminian doctrine.
Is it possible that neither the Arminian system nor the Calvinist system "explains it all." Since neither sets out to do so, it is quite likely. But if you are saying that neither the Calvinist view of election nor the Arminian view of election is sufficient, then it would be helpful if you could point to a third view of election. I am guessing (forgive me) that most people on this board who deny the Arminian label will point to the Arminian view of election as the self-evident teaching of Scripture, rather than some third way. If so, why not call it by its traditional name? At the risk of imputing to Pastor Larry motives he did not have, I suspect that is the question behind the question....
Mark
PS -- Perhaps a better name for the board would be the "Calvinist/Non-Calvinist Debate," since it would be easier for people to accept that label.
Primitive Baptist
New Member
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matt. 5:44, 45)
I believe God commands us to love our enemies to demonstrate the love He had toward us when He sent His Son to die on the cross for His people.
"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." (Rom. 5:10)
We were God's enemies at one time, but He still died for us. We are to do the same, "that we may be the children of our Father which is in heaven." But no, I don't believe God loves the non-elect. Do you believe God loved Esau in a "general" way? I think not.
I believe God commands us to love our enemies to demonstrate the love He had toward us when He sent His Son to die on the cross for His people.
"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." (Rom. 5:10)
We were God's enemies at one time, but He still died for us. We are to do the same, "that we may be the children of our Father which is in heaven." But no, I don't believe God loves the non-elect. Do you believe God loved Esau in a "general" way? I think not.
Daniel David
New Member
Then why didn't He strike him dead?
Did not Jesus refer to Judas as friend? He certainly is no "friend" of the gospel.
Did not Jesus refer to Judas as friend? He certainly is no "friend" of the gospel.
Chaplain's Wife
New Member
JMark this could also be called the 1 point, 3 point, 5 point Calvinist verses 4 point Arminians, LOL. You are correct in saying many people are Arminian in position without knowing it, but most Calvinists know why they are of that persuasion. We are having this same debate on another mb and I am accused of talking like an unbeliever and told my God is too small, when I say God does not preemt the freewill of man, that He gave in the garden (when He created man in his image). Just my 2 cents worth.
Primitive Baptist
New Member
God endures with much longsuffering the "vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." (Rom. 9:22)
God came in the flesh as Jesus Christ to be our example.
If God loves the wicked as much as His people, they wouldn't go to hell!"Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 8:39)
Do you think that means the entire race? If so, there are people in hell right now who are not separated from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus their Lord.
[ July 11, 2002, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
Daniel David
New Member
Primitive, I am quite sure I did NOT say that God loves the lost the same as His own. I did say that He has a general love for every single individual. He takes no pleasure in their destruction. He does desire the salvation of everyone. He actually only saves the ones He called though.
If you look up the words for 'friend' in the gospels, I think you'll find the word Jesus greeted Judas with means more like "acquaintance" than "close friend" which is a different Greek word, used in other passages.
Check it out and see what you find...
Well said Mark.
J
jmbertrand
Guest
A Calvinist would, of course, agree that God does not "pre-empt" man's free will. He would also agree that man possessed this free will in the garden. Where he would disagree is with the idea that the Fall has had no effect on this freedom. Christ taught us that a man who sins becomes a servant of sin. Apart from Christ, we are not free in the way that Adam was in the garden. This is obvious from the fact that, while the thoughts of Adam and Eve were not 'desperately wicked,' the thoughts of men in our post-lapsarian world are.
As far as I know, Calvinists and Arminians agree that the Fall had some impact on man's freedom. The Calvinist says man is totally depraved; the Arminian that he is as depraved as one can be and still have the power to willingly choose Christ. It was Pelagius who taught that the Fall had no real impact on man's will.
Mark
[ July 11, 2002, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: J. Mark Bertrand ]
Daniel David
New Member
AITB, I knew that. My point was merely in pointing out a general love than an intimate love.
VoiceInTheWilderness
New Member
As to the subject of whether or not God loves the non-elect - even with a different love than that of the elect. Good topic. One that should only remain an interesting discussion.
First we must remember that God takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked. (Study Jonah)
To say that God only loves the elect, and cares not at all for the non-elect, cannot be proven substatially with any scriptures. To choose to believe this would also not contradict any scriptures.
The bottom line is - whichever side you take is a choice. The question is, why do you side where you do?
Why is it that someone would take an issue as to whether or not God has any sort of affection for the non-elect. Might it just be that you have adopted that position because you yourself have absolutely no love for the lost and dying world around you? And therefore you cannot understand why God would love them either.The fact is we do not know who the elect are, and we are told to love our neighbor. Who is your neighbor?
Instead of being so concerned about who God loves and who He doesn't, maybe the real question is who do you love.
If Christ died for me while I was yet a sinner, I think the obvious application for me is to have enough compassion for the lost around me not to want to see them die and go to hell. To be one of the elect should drive you to your knees in humility.
I think that some have let the doctrine of election cause them to become just a little bit arrogant.
[ July 11, 2002, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: A voice crying in the wilderness ]
First we must remember that God takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked. (Study Jonah)
To say that God only loves the elect, and cares not at all for the non-elect, cannot be proven substatially with any scriptures. To choose to believe this would also not contradict any scriptures.
The bottom line is - whichever side you take is a choice. The question is, why do you side where you do?
Why is it that someone would take an issue as to whether or not God has any sort of affection for the non-elect. Might it just be that you have adopted that position because you yourself have absolutely no love for the lost and dying world around you? And therefore you cannot understand why God would love them either.The fact is we do not know who the elect are, and we are told to love our neighbor. Who is your neighbor?
Instead of being so concerned about who God loves and who He doesn't, maybe the real question is who do you love.
If Christ died for me while I was yet a sinner, I think the obvious application for me is to have enough compassion for the lost around me not to want to see them die and go to hell. To be one of the elect should drive you to your knees in humility.
I think that some have let the doctrine of election cause them to become just a little bit arrogant.
[ July 11, 2002, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: A voice crying in the wilderness ]
Son of Consolation
New Member
It is a very good question - theologically speaking of course. However, if I am permitted to say, it is not something which is essential to salvation, nor is it something which is to build the oneness of the Church, the body of Christ. For this has been debated often in various forms, and the end result remain always the same. People either defend the Calvinist or the Armenian view. But what is Calvinism or what is Armenianism anyway, or more precisely, who was John Calvin and who was Jacobus Arminius? They were mere men. When I observe the two camps facing each other on the theological battlefield, the following Bible verse come to my mind:
For this reason I liked Helen's answer the best, when she said that she was a Biblical Christian. As you may know, theological views will often change, as scholars gain more understanding and as the Holy Spirit reveals more from His Word, the Bible. If you ask me the above question, I would probably answer that I take a little bit of this and a little bit of that as long as it can be verified in the infallible Word of God. But on that base I ask you again, who was John Calvin or for that matter who was Jacobus Arminius? History records the mark they left behind in the theological battle gorunds:
John Calvin believed in the sovereignty of God's will to save only those whom God specifically elects, and that man can do nothing of his own to effect this salvation. This view was later embraced by Luther, who further refined the doctrine and made it the corner stone of the Reformed Church.
Jacobus Arminius had a diametrically opposing view, and he asserted the compatibility of divine sovereignty with human freedom. This view was embraced by the Wesley boys (Charles and John), founders of the Methodist Church, and also by the General Baptists.
So, please, no more bickering and in-house fighting among you on such trivial matters as Calvin and Arminius - for they were only men, but rather seek those things which edify the body of Christ and bring together fellow believers in the Lord. And now, I shall retire into the foxhole - for I can hear the booming sound of rocks thrown toward my direction.... from the Calvinist camp???!!!
[ July 12, 2002, 02:15 AM: Message edited by: Barnabas ]
I kinda liked it too but after the response she got I didn't dare say anything
But, Barnabus, your comments imply that everything on this forum should cease, if you are saying no more discussion of whether Calvin or Arminius is right...?
So, please, no more bickering and in-house fighting among you on such trivial matters as Calvin and Arminius - for they were only men, but rather seek those things which edify the body of Christ and bring together fellow believers in the Lord. And now, I shall retire into the foxhole - for I can hear the booming sound of rocks thrown toward my direction.... from the Calvinist camp???!!!
Is that what you really mean or is it the way certain respondents on this thread, have been criticized for their answers, that concerned you, in particular?
This thread is surprisingly different in that suddenly - on this thread - it's worse to deny belonging to either camp, than to be in the opposite one.
And I'm not sure there's any Biblical justification for that since love God and love your neighbor are the two greatest commandments and they do not mention election.
I like it when people are a little hesitant about saying they've got the measure of God's ways i.e. they know the Bible teaches what Calvinists think, or what Arminians think.
After all, if His ways are higher than ours, we can't fully know.
I don't see what's wrong with going to David's words in Psalm 139 and saying "Your thoughts are too wonderful for me; I cannot attain to them". I'd say that's taking a pretty 'high' view of God. A higher one than anyone who thinks they have got the way He operates down pat.
Anyway, thanks for your comments, Barnabus.
AITB
[ July 12, 2002, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: AITB ]
Son of Consolation
New Member
Thanks for your supportive remarks AITB, but I wasn't implying to cease the discussion - but rather to do it with certain civility. For there is no edification in a open brawl where the proponents of either views are bashing the heads of their counterparts and even insuniating that those others could not be saved and may not even be Christians.
P.S. There is no u in my name, only as. You might say that I have the tripple A (AAA) in my given name.
[ July 12, 2002, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Barnabas ]
P.S. There is no u in my name, only as. You might say that I have the tripple A (AAA) in my given name.
[ July 12, 2002, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Barnabas ]
Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying that!Originally posted by Barnabas:
Thanks for your supportive remarks AITB, but I wasn't implying to cease the discussion - but rather to do it with certain civility. For there is no edification in a open brawl where the proponents of either views are bashing the heads of their counterparts and even insuniating that those others could not be saved and may not even be Christians.
Yikes...so there isn't!P.S. There is no u in my name, only as. You might say that I have the tripple A (AAA) in my given name.
I'll try to remember that in future! See, if you had a username like q$zzyioxx-??r I would have meticulously checked I got it right, probably (I usually do check)...oh the irony!
My humble apologies for misspelling your name, Sir
Son of Consolation
New Member
That's all right, no harm done, just don't call me Barney!Originally posted by AITB: ...if you had a username like q$zzyioxx-??r I would have meticulously checked I got it right, probably (I usually do check)...oh the irony!
Barnabas,
As I told Helen, claiming to be a "biblical Christian" is not helpful in this discussion. Both sides, with diametrically opposing views, claim that moniker. One may be right; the other may be right; both may be wrong. But both cannot be right. Because both sides claim "biblical Christian" as a title, it is not helpful.
The discussion should not be about Calvin or Arminius because they are not the issue. Their names only have come to stand for doctrine that has been around for thousands of years.
This is an area, where as Mark (I believe) said, Why are these moderate arminians afraid to take the title? That is what they are. When you compare the basic tenets of the two positions, that is where they fall. But for some reason, they refuse to take it. Why?
As I told Helen, claiming to be a "biblical Christian" is not helpful in this discussion. Both sides, with diametrically opposing views, claim that moniker. One may be right; the other may be right; both may be wrong. But both cannot be right. Because both sides claim "biblical Christian" as a title, it is not helpful.
The discussion should not be about Calvin or Arminius because they are not the issue. Their names only have come to stand for doctrine that has been around for thousands of years.
This is an area, where as Mark (I believe) said, Why are these moderate arminians afraid to take the title? That is what they are. When you compare the basic tenets of the two positions, that is where they fall. But for some reason, they refuse to take it. Why?
Barnabas, thank you. I appreciate what you have said.
Larry, the argument is NOT about what title you choose to pin on anyone, but what they believe. I do not hold to the tenets of Calvinism OR Arminianism as a whole. I have good Calvinist friends who call me a 'one point Calvinist' and we both laugh about that. They accept that I am trying to make sure I don't leave out ANY Bible material, even though they are sure they are right!
I refer to myself to anyone who asks as a Biblical Christian. That is because the Bible is my sole and only authority on matters of doctrine, faith, and behavior.
No Arminian I am aware of believes salvation cannot be lost. They argue that Jesus does not 'lose' the person, but the person walks away. I know of VERY strong biblical arguments against that. I KNOW that salvation is sure. But I disagree with Calvinists that it is because of the 'perseverence of the saints.' It is because of Christ, first, last and always.
I disagree with Arminians that we can act on our choices, but I disagree with Calvinists that we don't have those choices. In other words, I guess one way of saying it is that I can choose who my master will be, but that certainly doesn't make me the master! It is though I were totally crippled and someone asked me which road I wanted to go down. I can choose, but someone else has to push the wheelchair...
So I don't belong in either camp, do I?
There are a great many others like me, believe me! Some nonCalvinists will refer to themselves as Arminians. That's fine. I don't because I'm not. And I reject that title if someone tries to pin it on me.
Larry, the argument is NOT about what title you choose to pin on anyone, but what they believe. I do not hold to the tenets of Calvinism OR Arminianism as a whole. I have good Calvinist friends who call me a 'one point Calvinist' and we both laugh about that. They accept that I am trying to make sure I don't leave out ANY Bible material, even though they are sure they are right!
I refer to myself to anyone who asks as a Biblical Christian. That is because the Bible is my sole and only authority on matters of doctrine, faith, and behavior.
No Arminian I am aware of believes salvation cannot be lost. They argue that Jesus does not 'lose' the person, but the person walks away. I know of VERY strong biblical arguments against that. I KNOW that salvation is sure. But I disagree with Calvinists that it is because of the 'perseverence of the saints.' It is because of Christ, first, last and always.
I disagree with Arminians that we can act on our choices, but I disagree with Calvinists that we don't have those choices. In other words, I guess one way of saying it is that I can choose who my master will be, but that certainly doesn't make me the master! It is though I were totally crippled and someone asked me which road I wanted to go down. I can choose, but someone else has to push the wheelchair...
So I don't belong in either camp, do I?
There are a great many others like me, believe me! Some nonCalvinists will refer to themselves as Arminians. That's fine. I don't because I'm not. And I reject that title if someone tries to pin it on me.