Calvinism or Arminianism?

[Skala]

I believe John MacArthur explains my feeling on this very well here: 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.

Cool, I will check it out. If you like Jonny Mac, check this related sermon out:

Why We Believe While Others Reject (1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16) John MacArthur - YouTube

 

[Metal Minister]

Cool, I will check it out. If you like Jonny Mac, check this related sermon out:

Why We Believe While Others Reject (1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16) John MacArthur - YouTube

Yes, I have that downloaded in mp3 form, and currently its in my queue! I'm hoping one day to be half the pastor he is!

 

[Ignatius21]

One other thing both systems share in common, is that each appears in history not more than 500 years ago, and each arose precisely as a different way to reject medieval Roman Catholicism.

As to the middle ground you seek, there is none between these two alternatives. Each is self consistent. Blending or splitting the difference leads to a strange mutation that really holds no water.

There is no middle ground. There is a different ground. Where these arguments were never had, because the battles that led to them were never at issue. It's worth your time to consider the whole scope of Christian history.

 

[Jack Terrence]

So is arminianism akin to works salvation?

Yeppers.

 

[Johnnz]

Really?

John
NZ

 

[Brother Chris]

The thread should be titled: What the bible teaches vs what the bible does not teach.

 

[manitouscott]

I have an honest question, not aimed at blasting anyone in particular.

So, let's say someone that is not predestined to accept Jesus as his savior begins reading the Bible, begins to pursue knowledge and wisdom, and eventually finds faith in Jesus Christ and accepts Him as Lord and savior, believing in His death and resurrection.

Is this possible? I know it sounds like a stupid question, but if we have free will how can God choose salvation for one person and not for another?

 

[hedrick]

I have an honest question, not aimed at blasting anyone in particular.

So, let's say someone that is not predestined to accept Jesus as his savior begins reading the Bible, begins to pursue knowledge and wisdom, and eventually finds faith in Jesus Christ and accepts Him as Lord and savior, believing in His death and resurrection.

Is this possible? I know it sounds like a stupid question, but if we have free will how can God choose salvation for one person and not for another?

No, it's not possible. Basically the doctrines of grace say that anyone who comes to God comes because God went before him, preparing the way and calling him. So his reading the Bible, his pursuit of knowledge, and his faith, are the result of God's grace. In fact this is a very typical way in which predestination is carried out.

Predestination does not mean that God just declares people saved, independent of their faith. Calvinists agree with Arminians on the need for faith and even the need for personal decision. However Calvinists see our ability to make that decision and come to faith as the result of God's work in our lives, both through the inner work of the Holy Spirit and through people and events around us.

 

[intojoy]

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.....

Sunset Metal Ministry,

If you chose to follow The Lord and Thus He elected you before the creation because he knew your heart, well then he owes you doesn't he?

The verse

you have not chosen me but I have chosen you

No man can come to the Son unless he is drawn of the Father

For you have been saved by grace thru faith and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God.

Why is it difficult to trust that God's grace did everything and that there is no human element to salvation?
Because of pride.

Too high of a self evaluation. Isn't what we are really thinking when we question why some are not elect, "I wouldn't not elect some, it's not fair"?
We are so prideful that we are willing to question God on this and to do so by comparing His decisions based on our vantage point of created beings using human emotions.
Some are not saved some are. Are you? Then glorify God for His grace and mercy period.

My attitude

 

[Ignatius21]

Why is it difficult to trust that God's grace did everything and that there is no human element to salvation?
Because of pride.

Or because we can affirm both the divine and human element of salvation, as the church has done from the beginning, and stop forcing it into the mold of either-or.

It is prideful to assert that God owes me anything. Prideful to believe there's anything about me that makes me desirable or deserving of salvation. It is not prideful to assert that God's grace works in and through my human activity. Both-And. Say it with me..."Both...And..."

 

[guuila]

Sound morality and personal responsibility require genuine freedom to choose.

What is "genuine freedom"?

 

[guuila]

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.

...says the guy who admitted he has no idea if he's been good enough to make it to heaven. Proof: http://www.christianforums.com/t7755788-13/#post63485860

 

[intojoy]

Or because we can affirm both the divine and human element of salvation, as the church has done from the beginning, and stop forcing it into the mold of either-or.

It is prideful to assert that God owes me anything. Prideful to believe there's anything about me that makes me desirable or deserving of salvation. It is not prideful to assert that God's grace works in and through my human activity. Both-And. Say it with me..."Both...And..."

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8, 9 NASB)

Check Mate

 

[Ignatius21]

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8, 9 NASB)

Check Mate

BAM! One verse has just disproven 2000 years of Church history, and at least seven Ecumenical Councils. Nicely done. If only Athanasius of Alexandria and John Chrysostom had known about this verse. Maybe they wouldn't have misled so many poor souls into error through their silly Incarnational thinking.

 

[hedrick]

Or because we can affirm both the divine and human element of salvation, as the church has done from the beginning, and stop forcing it into the mold of either-or.

Surprisingly, both Calvinism and Arminianism do this. It's only the extremes of fatalism and Pelagianism that do not.

Arminians maintain both by saying that God's grace and the human will work together, so that the result requires both. Calvinists maintain both because of compatibilism. This maintains that God's plan is worked out through human character and actions, so that humans make responsible choices but God's plan is still behind it all.

Personally I've always suspected that these are different ways of thinking about and describing what is basically the same thing.

 

[Ignatius21]

Thank you, Hedrick, for your curteous reply. Are you sure you wouldn't rather shut down conversation by lobbing a single Bible verse at me?

It does not surprise me that both systems retain the understanding that both God and man are active in human salvation. Both systems branched off a common fork in the western tree, and do share a common inheritance. I believe that they mainly disagree with each other because of, essentially, different approaches at how to appropriate Augustine's theology (OK...some of it anyway). which of course is largely why the matter is virtually unspoken of in Eastern theology. At least, not as it was in the West. Will most certainly was spoken of. A whole ecumenical council was devoted to it.

Have you ever read (directly, or about) the theology of St. Maximus the Confessor? I'm only just beginning to stick my toes into it. Deep stuff.

Surprisingly, both Calvinism and Arminianism do this. It's only the extremes of fatalism and Pelagianism that do not.

And at a popular level, I think the more zealous self-appointed representatives of each side do skid right along the edges you identified. I also think both sides are well adrift of the self-conscious attempt, at least by the early Reformers, to retain their catholic identity.

Arminians maintain both by saying that God's grace and the human will work together, so that the result requires both. Calvinists maintain both because of compatibilism. This maintains that God's plan is worked out through human character and actions, so that humans make responsible choices but God's plan is still behind it all.

And nothing of what you just said above, for either case, would raise any eyebrows in Orthodoxy, that I can tell. It's simply a given that both God's will and man's will are active in salvation. And that there isn't a conflict between the two. Salvation is our participation in Christ. Our faith is the faith of Christ. Our resurrection will be the resurrection of Christ. Only in Him do we have any connection to God at all, at least in a saving, healing sense. Orthodoxy would not say that God must do part, and man must do the rest. Or any such thing. Rather, any action that man freely does in cooperation with God, is the work of God's grace in that man. So human salvation is fully the work of God, and fully the work of man. Just as the Incarnation was fully God and fully man.

So I honestly do not understand what all the fuss is about! Both are true. We can't explain it. So let's move on.

Blanket statements like "Faith is a gift of God, therefore there is absolutely no human element to salvation" kind of set me off. They're so simplistic and frankly wrong (even from the Calvinist viewpoint) that they don't really warrant much interaction.

Personally I've always suspected that these are different ways of thinking about and describing what is basically the same thing.

But if everyone admitted to this, what would we fight about on Internet forums?

Even God's predestination of us, and our choice of him. The best explanation of this I ever read from an Orthodox scholar (and one fo the only, because it's really not much of a concern on this side) expressed some puzzlement about how the question can even be answered. Scripture very clearly affirms that God predestines. It very clearly affirms that man must believe and choose God. What does a prefix like "pre" even mean when applied to God? What does a phrase like "before eternity began" mean? God is uncreated. Time is created. God interacts with time in ways we cannot understand. The Incarnation really bakes our noodles because it's the very union of the created with the uncreated. So "from God's perspective," so this writer said, his choice of us, and our choice of him, really are the same event. At least, that's as close as we can come to understanding the matter.

I tend to agree with him. And it really no longer bothers me. If I learn one day that Augustine was a little bit more right about it than someone else, I'll say "OK, great!" and somehow I think that will pale compared to the unveiled glory of God.

 

[americanvet]

Ignatius and hendrick are both right. If the Bible were clear then there wouldn't be Calvinism and Arminianism. As I have said before I have cousin who attends a Presbyterian church and I attend a Methodist church. We view the acts of grace differently but BOTH agree in grace.

 

[intojoy]

BAM! One verse has just disproven 2000 years of Church history, and at least seven Ecumenical Councils. Nicely done. If only Athanasius of Alexandria and John Chrysostom had known about this verse. Maybe they wouldn't have misled so many poor souls into error through their silly Incarnational thinking.

Amen - preach it

 

[intojoy]

Amen - preach it

From their vantage point I have to respect their efforts to understanding this simple truth because I'm privileged to look back on the 2000 years of church history, like being high upon a mountain top and able to see what they could not see. Therefor it is important not to be too critical of their teachings, they did not have at their fingertips access to information. A push of a button and there it is. The early church fathers were amazing in what they were able to accomplish in spite of some erroneous mistakes.

 

[Johnnz]

From their vantage point I have to respect their efforts to understanding this simple truth because I'm privileged to look back on the 2000 years of church history, like being high upon a mountain top and able to see what they could not see. Therefor it is important not to be too critical of their teachings, they did not have at their fingertips access to information. A push of a button and there it is. The early church fathers were amazing in what they were able to accomplish in spite of some erroneous mistakes.

However, past teaching must be subject to new materials and approaches to understanding the Scriptures. Significant fresh exegesis became more widely available from the 1960's. Today, NT scholars see predestination not initially through a theological lens, but one based within exegesis of the texts before drawing further implications from them. This approach, greatly simplified, exegetes the 'proof texts' in a way that does not accept God's predestining individuals as has been done within church history.

Gordon Fee and Rikk Watts, both recognised NT scholars, have lectures on Romans available from Regent College, Vancouver for anyone wanting a reliable source for such a position.

John
NZ