Calvinism or Arminianism?

[Metal Minister]

I've seen this debate back and forth across this forum. It boils down to one question. Are we chosen to be saved, or do we choose ourselves to be saved? Did I come to Jesus Christ because I was irresistibly drawn by God or did I come to Christ because my heart said "I want to come to Christ"? The answer is yes.

Both are undeniably taught in scripture. This isn't to say Calvinism is wrong, or Armenianism is wrong, but that the answer lies in the middle ground, a place that God knows. I myself believe that since God is omniscient, he knows the beginning from the end, He knew who would come to Him from the foundation of the world. He knew us and and how our lives would unfold, and He is not waiting for us to make the decision, but already knows the outcome of that decision. He is at the end of time, just as He is at the beginning of time, at the same time. So no, I'm not a hyper-calvinist, and no I'm not a hyper-armenian, but I fall in the middle ground, and I trust in God to sort out the details.....

 

[Skala]

#1) It's Arminianism, not Armenianism. Arminianism is a doctrine. Armenians are citizens of the republic of Armenia


2) As for your stance, you said you are not an Arminian, but then your proceeded to describe Arminianism. You said:

I myself believe that since God is omniscient, he knows the beginning from the end, He knew who would come to Him from the foundation of the world. He knew us and and how our lives would unfold, and He is not waiting for us to make the decision, but already knows the outcome of that decision

Here you perfectly described the Arminian doctrine of Conditional Election.

That is not the middle ground as you claimed, but is squarely on the "side" of Arminianism.

As for the beginning of your post, I would like to offer some comments. You said:

It boils down to one question. Are we chosen to be saved, or do we choose ourselves to be saved? Did I come to Jesus Christ because I was irresistibly drawn by God or did I come to Christ because my heart said "I want to come to Christ"? The answer is yes.

I'm a Calvinist, which means I believe the only reason I was willing to choose Christ and submit to the gospel was because I was chosen to be saved.

Arminianism is the opposite, which states that the reason a person is chosen to be saved is because he was willing to choose Christ.

It can't be "both", it's either one or the other. One is the cart, the other is the horse. Either God's grace is the driving engine behind a man's salvation, or the man is. Either Christians in heaven will be saying "the reason I'm here is because God chose me" or they will be saving "The reason God chose me is because I decided to be here".

I think the Bible is crystal clear on this question, it plainly answers the question of whether or not we are chosen because of our willingness and obedience, or are we willing and obedient because we are chosen.

The Bible plainly tells us that it is the latter. It plainly teaches that God's grace in electing us before the foundation of the world is the engine, and our willingness to submit to Christ is the caboose. Not vice versa That is why I think Calvinism is the Biblical depiction of salvation, and Arminianism is incorrect and puts man in the driver seat and robs glory and credit from God.

 

[Johnnz]

Neither are explicitly taught. But Calvin did not understand some scriptures very well, especially Romans 9-11, and his doctrine can be put aside quite readily.

John
NZ

 

[guuila]

Neither are explicitly taught. But Calvin did not understand some scriptures very well, especially Romans 9-11, and his doctrine can be put aside quite readily.

John
NZ

Fortunately we don't have to care what Calvin thought. We have the Apostle Paul, Peter, Jesus, etc. and they all taught the doctrines of God's sovereign, effectual, and free grace.

 

[Skala]

Neither are explicitly taught. But Calvin did not understand some scriptures very well, especially Romans 9-11, and his doctrine can be put aside quite readily.

John
NZ

Calvin didn't invent those doctrines we call Calvinism, so Calvin's sole understanding of the Bible is utterly irrelevant and doesn't disprove anything.

Other reformers who lived before Calvin (one example being Luther) taught predestination and election louder and more boldly than Calvin ever dreamed of. Calvin was simply a reformer who believed what all the other reformers around him believed, including those that came before him.

The only reason we call these doctrines "Calvinism" today is because it is a nickname given to Calvins students who were heavily involved in the Arminian controversy and Remonstrance.

 

[Metal Minister]

#1) It's Arminianism, not Armenianism. Arminianism is a doctrine. Armenians are citizens of the republic of Armenia


2) As for your stance, you said you are not an Arminian, but then your proceeded to describe Arminianism. You said:

Here you perfectly described the Arminian doctrine of Conditional Election.

That is not the middle ground as you claimed, but is squarely on the "side" of Arminianism.

As for the beginning of your post, I would like to offer some comments. You said:

I'm a Calvinist, which means I believe the only reason I was willing to choose Christ and submit to the gospel was because I was chosen to be saved.

Arminianism is the opposite, which states that the reason a person is chosen to be saved is because he was willing to choose Christ.

It can't be "both", it's either one or the other. One is the cart, the other is the horse. Either God's grace is the driving engine behind a man's salvation, or the man is. Either Christians in heaven will be saying "the reason I'm here is because God chose me" or they will be saving "The reason God chose me is because I decided to be here".

I think the Bible is crystal clear on this question, it plainly answers the question of whether or not we are chosen because of our willingness and obedience, or are we willing and obedient because we are chosen.

The Bible plainly tells us that it is the latter. It plainly teaches that God's grace in electing us before the foundation of the world is the engine, and our willingness to submit to Christ is the caboose. Not vice versa That is why I think Calvinism is the Biblical depiction of salvation, and Arminianism is incorrect and puts man in the driver seat and robs glory and credit from God.

First, my apologies on the misspelling (that's technology and auto-correct for you!). Secondly, the bible also teaches some (at least limited) free will in this. I think perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I know the bible teaches election,(that's undeniable) but there is more to it than that. Jesus said "You will not cone to me so that you might have life." That means they choose not to come to Him. Jesus said: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing." Not willing implies the ability to choose for themselves. I may be a little fuzzy on arminianism, I'll admit. I just think hyper-calvinism isn't the best formula. I guess you could say I'm a moderate calvinist, I just think there's something more to it. Does that make sense?

 

[Skala]

First, my apologies on the misspelling (that's technology and auto-correct for you!).

No worries The main reason I responded is because there's lots of people who are reading these posts (who might not necessarily be involved in discussion). So for their benefit I try to be educational

Secondly, the bible also teaches some (at least limited) free will in this

I think the Bible teaches that we have a will (ie, the ability to make choices), but it does not teach that the will is free. Instead, it teaches that each person, because of the fall, is enslaved to sin, thus chooses accordingly. In other words, the range of choices we can make, by default fallen nature, is in accordance with our fallen nature. In the same a way prisoner is only free to pace around in his jail cell, but can go no further, a sinner's range of choices is limited by his fallen nature. Choosing Christ is not something that appears on his radar screen of choices. Instead, rebellion is the default choice that fallen sons and daughters of Adam choose.

That is why Jesus taught that it is impossible to come to Him without being enabled by the Father/having it granted to them by the Father (John 6:44,65)

I think perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I know the bible teaches election,(that's undeniable) but there is more to it than that. Jesus said "You will not cone to me so that you might have life." That means they choose not to come to Him.

Exactly They choose not to come to Him, because it is not in their nature to come to Him, thus they choose accordingly. It is only when the Spirit of God comes by grace and changes our hearts that we are willing to come to Him. Thus salvation truly is "by grace alone"

Jesus said: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing."

Actually, the verse says that Jesus longed to gather "your children...but you were not willing". It does not say "I longed to gather you, but you were not willing". "Your children" and "you" are two different groups of people. The "you" is the people that Jesus is directly condemning and scolding in the context of the chapter, namely, the Jewish leaders. Jesus is scolding them for not being willing that the children of Israel come to Jesus. Context really changes the alleged meaning of this verse.

Not willing implies the ability to choose for themselves.

It seems to me that "not willing" implies that they can't be willing in and of their own power because of the hold that sin has on them, but it takes God's miraculous, intervening, regenerating grace for anyone to be willing. I know I personally credit God's regenerating grace or else I would never have been willing to come to Jesus on my own innate strength.

I may be a little fuzzy on arminianism, I'll admit

That's ok, we're all here to learn An easy way to remember is that Arminianism is the exact reverse of Calvinism. Historically, the protestant reformers had doctrines that they felt recaptured the gospel of grace that had been lost in the corruption of the dark age church (Ie, roman catholic church). The reformers felt that they had recaptured and reestablished historic, Christian doctrine.

The Arminians came along and challenged these doctrines. The reformers felt that this was a step back away from reform (and thus, historical christianity) and back towards Roman Catholicism. The Arminians issued 5 points of disagreement with the theology of the reformers.

Thus, the reformers issued 5 responses (one for each disagreement of the Arminians). Those responses are today known as the 5 points of Calvinism, or TULIP. So Calvinism did not originate as a positive declaration of doctrine, but rather it is a negative response to Arminianism.

I just think hyper-calvinism isn't the best formula

I don't think anyone here is a hyper-Calvinist. Do you even know what Hyper Calvinism is? Do you know how it differs from "regular" Calvinism? Do you understand the implications and doctrines of Hyper-Calvinism and how it differs from Calvinism? I always feel a red flag go up with people use the phrase "Hyper Calvinism", hence my concern

I guess you could say I'm a moderate calvinist, I just think there's something more to it. Does that make sense?

Well, I think "moderate" Calvinism is just plain ole', regular, historical Calvinism. There's no reason for the prefix. Just call it Calvinism

 

[Metal Minister]

No worries The main reason I responded is because there's lots of people who are reading these posts (who might not necessarily be involved in discussion). So for their benefit I try to be educational

.

I think the Bible teaches that we have a will (ie, the ability to make choices), but it does not teach that the will is free. Instead, it teaches that each person, because of the fall, is enslaved to sin, thus chooses accordingly. In other words, the range of choices we can make, by default fallen nature, is in accordance with our fallen nature. In the same a way prisoner is only free to pace around in his jail cell, but can go no further, a sinner's range of choices is limited by his fallen nature. Choosing Christ is not something that appears on his radar screen of choices. Instead, rebellion is the default choice that fallen sons and daughters of Adam choose.

Exactly Because it is not in their nature to come to Him, thus they choose accordingly. It is only when the Spirit of God comes by grace and changes our hearts that we are willing to come to Him. Thus salvation truly is "by grace alone"

Actually, the verse says that Jesus longed to gather "your children...but you were not willing". It does not say "I longed to gather you, but you were not willing". "Your children" and "you" are two different groups of people. The "you" is the people that Jesus is directly condemning and scolding in the context of the chapter, namely, the Jewish leaders. Jesus is scolding them for not being willing that the children of Israel come to Jesus. Context really changes the alleged meaning of this verse.

It seems to me that "not willing" implies that they can't be willing in and of their own power because of the hold that sin has on them, but it takes God's miraculous, intervening, regenerating grace for anyone to be willing. I know I personally credit God's regenerating grace or else I would never have been willing to come to Jesus on my own innate strength.

.

That's ok, we're all here to learn An easy way to remember is that Arminianism is the exact reverse of Calvinism. Historically, the protestant reformers had doctrines that they felt recaptured the gospel of grace that had been lost in the corruption of the dark age church (Ie, roman catholic church). The reformers felt that they had recaptured and reestablished historic, Christian doctrine.

The Arminians came along and challenged these doctrines. The reformers felt that this was a step back away from reform (and thus, historical christianity) and back towards Roman Catholicism. The Arminians issued 5 points of disagreement with the theology of the reformers.

Thus, the reformers issued 5 responses (one for each disagreement of the Arminians). Those responses are today known as the 5 points of Calvinism, or TULIP. So Calvinism did not originate as a positive declaration of doctrine, but rather it is a negative response to Arminianism.

.

I don't think anyone here is a hyper-Calvinist. Do you even know what Hyper Calvinism is? Do you know how it differs from "regular" Calvinism? Do you understand the implications and doctrines of Hyper-Calvinism and how it differs from Calvinism? I always feel a red flag go up with people use the phrase "Hyper Calvinism", hence my concern

Well, I think "moderate" Calvinism is just plain ole', regular, historical Calvinism. There's no reason for the prefix. Just call it Calvinism

Thank you! I believe you've cleared up quite a bit for me! Another question arises for me though, (and this is why I want so desperately to go to seminary) but you're saying that the RCC held an arminian view, or that arminianism grew out if the RCC? I guess that's got me a little confused. Little help? Lol!

 

[elman]

Fortunately we don't have to care what Calvin thought. We have the Apostle Paul, Peter, Jesus, etc. and they all taught the doctrines of God's sovereign, effectual, and free grace.

And they all taught the wicked have no hope.

 

[Skala]

Thank you! I believe you've cleared up quite a bit for me! Another question arises for me though, (and this is why I want so desperately to go to seminary) but you're saying that the RCC held an arminian view, or that arminianism grew out if the RCC? I guess that's got me a little confused. Little help? Lol!

Well, to answer that let me give you some quotes by the author of the beloved Hymn "Rock of Ages", Augustus Toplady:

Arminianism "came from Rome, and leads thither again.
...
If we sum up the evidence that has been given, we shall find its amount to be, that Arminianism came from the Church of Rome, and leads back again to the pit whence it was digged.

So yes, Calvinism is consistent protestant evangelicalism.

Arminianism is a step back towards the doctrines that the reformers felt were so erroneous that a drastic, history-changing event was necessary (the protestant reformation)

 

[elman]

Well, to answer that let me give you some quotes by the author of the beloved Hymn "Rock of Ages", Augustus Toplady:



So yes, Calvinism is consistent protestant evangelicalism.

Arminianism is a step back towards the doctrines that the reformers felt were so erroneous that a drastic, history-changing event was necessary (the protestant reformation)

And history can also be twisted to where it is not recognizable.

 

[Johnnz]

Fortunately we don't have to care what Calvin thought. We have the Apostle Paul, Peter, Jesus, etc. and they all taught the doctrines of God's sovereign, effectual, and free grace.

Yeah

John
NZ

 

[Metal Minister]

Well, to answer that let me give you some quotes by the author of the beloved Hymn "Rock of Ages", Augustus Toplady:

So yes, Calvinism is consistent protestant evangelicalism.

Arminianism is a step back towards the doctrines that the reformers felt were so erroneous that a drastic, history-changing event was necessary (the protestant reformation)

So is arminianism akin to works salvation?

 

[Johnnz]

Calvin didn't invent those doctrines we call Calvinism, so Calvin's sole understanding of the Bible is utterly irrelevant and doesn't disprove anything.

Other reformers who lived before Calvin (one example being Luther) taught predestination and election louder and more boldly than Calvin ever dreamed of. Calvin was simply a reformer who believed what all the other reformers around him believed, including those that came before him.

The only reason we call these doctrines "Calvinism" today is because it is a nickname given to Calvins students who were heavily involved in the Arminian controversy and Remonstrance.

Agreed. Predestination as doctrine rather than using a name would be better, although Calvin does have that doctrine within his theology. And for some reformed denominations there seems to be a 'St Calvin' aura about his teaching on predestination.

John
NZ

 

[Johnnz]

Secondly, the bible also teaches some (at least limited) free will in this. I think perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

God' sovereignty is primarily about His purposes - they will always come to be as and when He decides

I know the bible teaches election,(that's undeniable) but there is more to it than that.

Election referred to God's choice of Israel as a nation. It doe snot refer to individuals.

Jesus said "You will not cone to me so that you might have life." That means they choose not to come to Him. Jesus said: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing." Not willing implies the ability to choose for themselves. I may be a little fuzzy on arminianism, I'll admit. I just think hyper-calvinism isn't the best formula. I guess you could say I'm a moderate calvinist, I just think there's something more to it. Does that make sense?

The verses you quoted do show the necessity of choice. Sound morality and personal responsibility require genuine freedom to choose. We don't need to place a label (Arminianism) onto that biblical concept. The free will vs God's pre-determination debate with its labels tends to obscure biblical statements within some theological construction.

John
NZ

 

[geneseib]

I've seen this debate back and forth across this forum. It boils down to one question. Are we chosen to be saved, or do we choose ourselves to be saved? Did I come to Jesus Christ because I was irresistibly drawn by God or did I come to Christ because my heart said "I want to come to Christ"? The answer is yes.

Both are undeniably taught in scripture. This isn't to say Calvinism is wrong, or Armenianism is wrong, but that the answer lies in the middle ground, a place that God knows. I myself believe that since God is omniscient, he knows the beginning from the end, He knew who would come to Him from the foundation of the world. He knew us and and how our lives would unfold, and He is not waiting for us to make the decision, but already knows the outcome of that decision. He is at the end of time, just as He is at the beginning of time, at the same time. So no, I'm not a hyper-calvinist, and no I'm not a hyper-armenian, but I fall in the middle ground, and I trust in God to sort out the details.....

I believe the whole free will/predestination argument is a red herring. Every moment in life is predetermined by God's creation, our decisions and the decisions of those around us. Yet at every moment we have the free will to choose right or wrong. Free will and predestination - they are both gospel - embrace both.

 

[elman]

The verses you quoted do show the necessity of choice. Sound morality and personal responsibility require genuine freedom to choose. We don't need to place a label (Arminianism) onto that biblical concept. The free will vs God's pre-determination debate with its labels tends to obscure biblical statements within some theological construction.

John
NZ

 

[Metal Minister]

I believe John MacArthur explains my feeling on this very well here: http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/1301-T/bible-questions-and-answers-part-22

If you don't want to listen to the whole thing, (though its quite good) just fast forward to the 19:30 mark, roughly. The question is asked by Alan.

 

[elman]

So is arminianism akin to works salvation?

If loving your neighbor has nothing to do with being a child of God and having hope of eternal life, why did Jesus teach it did? Matt 25. I think labels such as works salvation and arminianism are not useful unless we all agree on what we are talking about when we use those terms.

 

[Skala]

So is arminianism akin to works salvation?

Let me be clear on how I answer this.

I don't think Arminian Christians (people who hold to Arminianism) are believing they are saved by works. I think they are truly trusting Christ alone.

But it's when you put their theology on paper and peel back some layers that you can demonstrate that at it's core, it is salvation by works. Ultimately it is salvation by obedience or salvation by certain activity of the sinner himself. In Arminianism, the ultimate reason a person is saved is because of what he/she did, not because of what God did. In Arminianism, what makes two people to differ (an unbeliever vs a believer) is not God's grace, but how each of those individuals responded to the gospel. Thus in Arminianism the reason I differ from an unbeliever is me and what I did.

So yes I think Arminianism is dangerous and promotes reliance on self, rather than crediting and attributing God's grace alone for the reason I differ from an unbeliever. (ie, his electing, predestining, regenerating grace)