Calvinism vs Arminian is a worldview debate

[mikedsjr]

I pretty much lump Christians into two primary categories. The Reformed/Calvinist go into the Enlightenment/Rationalism side. Then there are the Arminian/Wesleyan/Semi-Pelegians who fall into Romanticism/Emotional/Mysticism side. There tends to be a missing link between the two. They disconnect. One is nearly completely attempting to rationalize, while the other side has emotional attachment to the situation involved. To argue properly requires a accurate knowledge of the opponent. And neither side tends to be so gracious as to do such.

There is a focus in the Scriptures to each side.

Arminian: Abraham believed God.....freewill
Calvinist: God is giving a specified land to Abraham's offspring.

Arminian: Abraham freely went to Egypt and lied to the king there
Calvinist: God struck the king with plagues because of Sara, Abraham's wife.

Arminian: Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.
Calvinist: No one comes to the Father, except Jesus draws them to him.

Arminian: preach topically and seeker sensitive
Calvinist: preach exegetically through a book of the Bible or a Bible topic.

Its a battle of worldviews.

I still have some calvinistic positions, but I'm not calvinsist anymore. I would be considered a blasphemer if i spoke my view which leans the Lutheran-esque direction, so i don't, since I am still a Baptist church attender.

I will be honest and say I still don't understand the Arminian-esque (or Anti-calvinist) stance. I try, but i fail. I can try to an extent, but then the faithful, "No, that is not what that verse says" arrives. It happens the other way too, so i don't want to make this sound accusatory. The reality is there is a divide and it is difficult to have respectful discussions.

just random philosophical thoughts on this.

 

[98cwitr]

"Calvinist: No one comes to the Father, except Jesus draws them to him."

Actually that's backwards. John 6 says "No one can come to me [Jesus] unless the Father draws them."

This topic reminds me of the Myers-Briggs my wife and I took. We were nearly polar opposites except for the last letter. The way I see it, Reformed Baptist is a thinking man's denomination...one who uses reason, logic, and Scripture to test every teaching. Armenian theology, to me, seems like a feeling man's denomination...one who's motives, beliefs, and actions are driven by emotion and feeling. That said, my wife and I work like yin and yang...we compliment each other in our opposing views.

I was always taught that faith isn't an emotion, it's not something you feel, but something you have, you possess...and thus by which you do. Apart from Christ we can do nothing. I guess that's why I lean that way. Feelings come and go like the wind, but Truth, logic, and reason are much more steadfast to me.

 

[mikedsjr]

I'm trying to not be so hard on those who believe in free will. In a sense I can see free will in Scripture. We see commands to repent. We see Ninevah repent and God withholds his judgement. But we also see God act before someone is even born, which demonstrates there lack of choice.

Choice is emotional to people. The Romantics fought hard against the Enlightenment. They both still tend to linger in culture under different forms. And the church has seemed to push the Romantisist branch more. It's what sales better. And hating Calvinism is about as an emotional topic as a cop beating a kid in school who refuses to listen. People pick sides and they pull towards the emotional appeal. It shouldn't be a shocker there is little emotional appeal to Calvinism.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

That sounds kind of like saying that if you're Arminian then you have no brain, and if you're Calvinist then you have no heart, to adapt another saying. I don't think the debate is polar. It's just emotional for some people. I understand Calvinism to be a paradox, in which lies the seemingly opposite concepts of human will and predestination. I can understand and accept the principles that Arminians hold dear, because they are not wrong in the practical sense. It's much like the differences between Newtonian and relative physics: one is practically true, and the other is technically true. One holds true at the human level, and the other holds the truths that give rise to those truths. If anyone wants to emphasize the importance of evangelism, of choosing Christ, of willpower over sin, of an emotional relationship with God, I'm all for that. What I won't let anyone do is tell me that I must be the opposite of that to be a Calvinist. I am not the opposite of an Arminian. I follow a paradox that accepts Arminian concepts at one level and seemingly contradictory concepts at another level. I tell the Arminian that he is right, and he tells me that I am wrong. Frankly, I don't care that much about it. I've been surrounded by good Christians of the Arminian persuasion my whole life, including my entire family, and I see no reason why I can't continue to live quite amicably with such people for the rest of my life.

 

[mikedsjr]

That sounds kind of like saying that if you're Arminian then you have no brain, and if you're Calvinist then you have no heart, to adapt another saying. I don't think the debate is polar. It's just emotional for some people. I understand Calvinism to be a paradox, in which lies the seemingly opposite concepts of human will and predestination. I can understand and accept the principles that Arminians hold dear, because they are not wrong in the practical sense. It's much like the differences between Newtonian and relative physics: one is practically true, and the other is technically true. One holds true at the human level, and the other holds the truths that give rise to those truths. If anyone wants to emphasize the importance of evangelism, of choosing Christ, of willpower over sin, of an emotional relationship with God, I'm all for that. What I won't let anyone do is tell me that I must be the opposite of that to be a Calvinist. I am not the opposite of an Arminian. I follow a paradox that accepts Arminian concepts at one level and seemingly contradictory concepts at another level. I tell the Arminian that he is right, and he tells me that I am wrong. Frankly, I don't care that much about it. I've been surrounded by good Christians of the Arminian persuasion my whole life, including my entire family, and I see no reason why I can't continue to live quite amicably with such people for the rest of my life.

I can agree with you to some extent, especially if the issues came down to soteriology. I wouldn't say Arminians are brainless. They are ruled by emotions and they are typically most people. Calvinist are more ruled by the brain and the emotions tend to follow. I never would have claimed paradox beliefs when I claimed I was Calvinist. However, Lutheranism does claim to be paradoxical. They believe Christians have eternal assurance and yet can lose their salvation. To them, Calvinist and Arminians are both a bit messed up. Calvinist reject free will, but Lutherans say free will exists. Arminians say we have free will in salvation while Lutherans say you don't. Both Calvinist and Arminians say you can't lose your salvation, however Lutherans say you have free will to lose it.

The one area that disturbs me with the Arminians types is how loose they are with Scripture. You can't tell me a flippant view of Scripture doesn't affect the entirety of their view. It becomes inconsistent.

My favorite people to listen to are Lutherans. In life they are so more care free. They enjoy a drink. Some love to play Different games some baptist types are not fond of. But they take Scripture to what it says. There is no way baptist can agree with Lutheran theology because they will see it as too RC.

 

[98cwitr]

Isn't a Lutheran motto "Sin boldly?"

 

[Gregory the NonTheologian]

I pretty much lump Christians into two primary categories. The Reformed/Calvinist go into the Enlightenment/Rationalism side. Then there are the Arminian/Wesleyan/Semi-Pelegians who fall into Romanticism/Emotional/Mysticism side. There tends to be a missing link between the two. They disconnect. One is nearly completely attempting to rationalize, while the other side has emotional attachment to the situation involved. To argue properly requires a accurate knowledge of the opponent. And neither side tends to be so gracious as to do such.

There is a focus in the Scriptures to each side.

Arminian: Abraham believed God.....freewill
Calvinist: God is giving a specified land to Abraham's offspring.

Arminian: Abraham freely went to Egypt and lied to the king there
Calvinist: God struck the king with plagues because of Sara, Abraham's wife.

Arminian: Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.
Calvinist: No one comes to the Father, except Jesus draws them to him.

Arminian: preach topically and seeker sensitive
Calvinist: preach exegetically through a book of the Bible or a Bible topic.

Its a battle of worldviews.

I still have some calvinistic positions, but I'm not calvinsist anymore. I would be considered a blasphemer if i spoke my view which leans the Lutheran-esque direction, so i don't, since I am still a Baptist church attender.

I will be honest and say I still don't understand the Arminian-esque (or Anti-calvinist) stance. I try, but i fail. I can try to an extent, but then the faithful, "No, that is not what that verse says" arrives. It happens the other way too, so i don't want to make this sound accusatory. The reality is there is a divide and it is difficult to have respectful discussions.

just random philosophical thoughts on this.

Is it fair to say that another taxonomy would be:

(a) We can be saved by virtue of our free will

(b) We are only saved by virtue of grace (with prevenient grace dominating our free will)

(c) We are saved by virtue of our free will cooperating with grace


This would result, I think, in the following three groups:

(a) Pelagians - last seen in Ireland in the 8th century, whereabouts unknown today

(b) Augustinians - Roman Catholics and some Protestants

(c) "Semi-Pelagians" - Orthodox Christians and some Protestants

 

[98cwitr]

d) We are saved by grace through faith, which is a gift from God

d) Baptists

 

[JM]

The debate is between the believer and the humanist, a Christian worldview and an unbelieving worldview. The debate is between the church and the world. Contra mundum!

jm
PS: There is no such thing as "prevenient grace."

 

[mikedsjr]

The debate is between the believer and the humanist, a Christian worldview and an unbelieving worldview. The debate is between the church and the world. Contra mundum!

jm
PS: There is no such thing as "prevenient grace."

I think humanism plays some part, but I would not imply it is entirely a Christian vs unbelievers. I'm interested in the background that caused divisions. They can be both right in some/all areas. They could both have foundations improperly built upon.

 

[twin1954]

I think humanism plays some part, but I would not imply it is entirely a Christian vs unbelievers. I'm interested in the background that caused divisions. They can be both right in some/all areas. They could both have foundations improperly built upon.

JM is correct. There is only one God and who He is is paramount to understanding the Gospel. No one can be saved believing in a figment of their imagination, which the god of Arminainism is. It isn't a matter of what you know but of Who you know.

(Joh 17:3) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

 

[mikedsjr]

JM is correct. There is only one God and who He is is paramount to understanding the Gospel. No one can be saved believing in a figment of their imagination, which the god of Arminainism is. It isn't a matter of what you know but of Who you know.

(Joh 17:3) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

I disagree. The wonderful reality is we don't need to be perfect in our understanding. You will end up making salvation a work of knowledge. Is the Trinity a fact, yes. I think there is a great deal of Christians believing in heretical view of the Trinity because their just not wise enough on the subject to understand the issue. Whether it is Calvinism or Arminianism, we must be careful to not add more conditions to Salvation than Scripture speaks of. I don't see an issue with membership of a church to require conditions agreed to

Discipleship is lacking in most churches

 

[ALoveDivine]

I think this whole debate stems from us trying to rationalize a profound mystery. The bible affirms both free will and the sovereignty of God. Both are true, how they are both true at the same time is an utter mystery. Instead of trying to build philosophical systems to reconcile these two truths, we should simply accept them both as true and move on.

God chooses those who are to be saved, AND anyone who wills may freely come and be saved. Both statements are true, lets stop the philosophical gymnastics and embrace what is a mystery beyond our ability to fully comprehend.

 

[JM]

Let’s not turn clearly revealed doctrine into mysteries just to avoid arguments.

 

[royal priest]

When a Christian who adheres to the Arminian worldview prays, their prayers often reflect the Calvinist worldview. For instance, "Please God, don't let my loved ones perish in Hell" does not seem like a prayer consistent with free will theology. A true understanding of such a prayer realizes that God is more than a mere spectator of what He foreknew. If we know our Uncle Bob to be a great sinner without any hope except for divine intervention, then we can and ought to plead with God to direct that uncle's heart as He would direct the rivers of water." (Proverbs 21:1)

 

[Job8]

It shouldn't be a shocker there is little emotional appeal to Calvinism.

There's little biblical support either. Purely a doctrine of men. And this has nothing to do with emotionalism vs rationalism. It has more to do with a proper (or improper) understanding of the finished work of Christ for all humanity.

BTW, Baptists did not come out of the Reformation, so "Reformed Baptists" is actually a relatively recent phenomenon (and an anomaly). Study The History of the Baptists by Thomas Armitage (1890) and it will open your eyes to the relationship between the Reformers and the Baptists.

 

[Job8]

For instance, "Please God, don't let my loved ones perish in Hell" does not seem like a prayer consistent with free will theology.

Why not? A proper understanding of the Gospel and how it brings sinners to salvation would teach you that God is not a mere spectator when the Gospel is preached. It is always the Gospel on one hand and the work of the Holy Spirit on the other hand in bringing sinners to the Savior. And all Christians pray for Divine intervention not only in this instance, but in every aspect of their lives and the lives of others.

 

[98cwitr]

Why not? A proper understanding of the Gospel and how it brings sinners to salvation would teach you that God is not a mere spectator when the Gospel is preached. It is always the Gospel on one hand and the work of the Holy Spirit on the other hand in bringing sinners to the Savior. And all Christians pray for Divine intervention not only in this instance, but in every aspect of their lives and the lives of others.

And yet...what if that intervention isn't granted? Is it a result of the person's state of heart?

 

[royal priest]

A proper understanding of the Gospel and how it brings sinners to salvation would teach you that God is not a mere spectator when the Gospel is preached. It is always the Gospel on one hand and the work of the Holy Spirit on the other hand in bringing sinners to the Savior.

In light of your your statement above, It seems you might agree with the following statement formally penned by Baptists into a confession of faith in the 17th century. This from Calvinists in England:
Those whom God has predestined unto life, He is pleased in His appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving to them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by His almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.

 

[mikedsjr]

There's little biblical support either. Purely a doctrine of men. And this has nothing to do with emotionalism vs rationalism. It has more to do with a proper (or improper) understanding of the finished work of Christ for all humanity.

BTW, Baptists did not come out of the Reformation, so "Reformed Baptists" is actually a relatively recent phenomenon (and an anomaly). Study The History of the Baptists by Thomas Armitage (1890) and it will open your eyes to the relationship between the Reformers and the Baptists.

the impact worldviews have on interpreting Scripture is real. It's the very reason so many today attend churches with charismatic style worship band churches: modernism & postmodernism. It the reason so many false churches started during the heart of the Romantic period: JW, Mormonism, etc.

If Baptist didn't branch from the reformers, then it's a travesty and should have its integrity questioned. It's becomes a pointless mindless group of rebels.