Why discuss Calvinism vs Arminianism in Evangelism? Starts with Definitions

[BobRyan]

The gospel-and all of Scripture-make little sense to me if salvation has nothing whatsoever to do with man's will, if he's either predestined to heaven or predestined to hell IOW. Instead I'd submit that our faith is all about the human will, that, ever since Adam, God patiently worked with man for centuries, for the very purpose of ultimately grooming and drawing and educating humanity to bring us to the point where we might finally begin to appreciate and accept and embrace the true light when we see it.

And the doctrine of election with double predestination is sort of a moot and speculative point in any case-a matter of putting the cart ahead of the horse- because we cannot know with absolute and perfect certainty just exactly who are numbered among the elect, and who are not, to begin with.

good point

 

[Ilikecats]

God convicts. Satan tempts. We make the choice who we will serve.

I don’t think all men feel personal conviction. Not all men have the ability to choose with personal conviction from God.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Essentially it is the issue of whether the Gospel invitation is for all - and "whosoever will" or is it a "selection" system where God "Selects" some for salvation and simply fails to select others thus God is the only actor/determination and the choice of the lost person is not a factor that determines anything at all.

The arminian model is an open system... where the Gospel is open to all.

Let's examine this much of the op.

Short Version:
Reformed Arminianism as Arminius articulated it is not an "open system." Arminius not assert the gospel was open to all because Arminius was an adherent of what we now cal "total depravity,"

The Arminian model does not claim that "in depravity alone - the lost are fully capable of choice" ... rather as the OP states - the Arminian position says that lost man is "enabled" by God to choose the Gospel. So it is not the natural work of the sinful nature "alone". Rather it is the supernatural work of God acting to "draw all mankind to Him" John 12:32 that enable the lost person "to choose" life or death, to choose as Romans 10 points out and is quoted in the OP

In Arminianism free will exists because of the supernatural act of God in "drawing all mankind unto Him" John 12:32 and as a result we have

Evangelism where "we BEG you on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God" 2 Cor 5

The claim about the sinful nature is that " it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, 'Without me ye can do nothing.'

And it ALSO observes that the problem is solved by the supernatural drawing of God where He says He "Draws ALL mankind to Him" John 12:32.. enabling all to choose ... establishing the basis for "fact" stated in Romans 10

As noted in the OP.

Notice where the focus of "action" is in Rom 10

Rom 10: "9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."
.

 

[Ilikecats]

BobRyan said: ↑
Essentially it is the issue of whether the Gospel invitation is for all - and "whosoever will" or is it a "selection" system where God "Selects" some for salvation and simply fails to select others thus God is the only actor/determination and the choice of the lost person is not a factor that determines anything at all.

The arminian model is an open system... where the Gospel is open to all.



The Arminian model does not claim that "in depravity alone - the lost are fully capable of choice" ... rather as the OP states - the Arminian position says that lost man is "enabled" by God to choose the Gospel. So it is not the natural work of the sinful nature "alone". Rather it is the supernatural work of God acting to "draw all mankind to Him" John 12:32 that enable the lost person "to choose" life or death, to choose as Romans 10 points out and is quoted in the OP

The claim about the sinful nature is that " it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, 'Without me ye can do nothing.'

And it ALSO observes that the problem is solved by the supernatural drawing of God where He says He "Draws ALL mankind to Him" John 12:32.. enabling all to choose ... establishing the basis for "fact" stated in Romans 10

As noted in the OP.

Which translation of John 12:32 says mankind? Jesus is referring to both Gentiles and Jews when he says he will draw all men to him as there were Greek people in the crowd he was addressing.

 

[Peter J Barban]

No, we decide based on what kind of God the Bible tells us he is. Since it confirms there is no darkness in him, he can't be the author of sin, which is what Calvinism makes him.

Your argument was rejected by the story of Job.

Job's friends claimed that since God was good and just, Job must be a sinner and deserve his suffering. They could not accept that God is good and Job suffers as an innocent man. They were wrong and their foolish argument made God angry.

Please abandon the foolish theory that God can only be good if he does what you think he should do.

 

[Josheb]

Do we really know what Pelagias believed or only what Augustine said he believed?

Does not matter for the sake of this discussion. The soteriological views that currently bear his name have stood as such for the last 1600 years. We do have some of his writings (such as his letter to Demetrias) and some of what he said I would agree with (such as the inherent mortality of Adam and Eve); he was, after all a Christian cleric who had previously been recognized as both by the church and his peers. He was wrong about many conditions involving salvation and modern-day self-acknowledging Pelagians openly accept those positions as Pelagian (such as "original sin," and the unsullied condition of the will). A simple three second Google search would have answered that question for you.

 

[Phil W]

You obey in love because he saved you.

He has indeed left me with everything I need to be judged perfectly and to find my name in the book of life on the last day.
Which makes it quite clear that those who don't obey Him don't love Him.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

He has indeed left me with everything I need to be judged perfectly and to find my name in the book of life on the last day.
Which makes it quite clear that those who don't obey Him don't love Him.

If you fail to do this, you fail to obey Him: "And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”

 

[Josheb]

The arminian model is an open system... where the Gospel is open to all.

The Arminian model does not claim that "in depravity alone - the lost are fully capable of choice" ... rather as the OP states - the Arminian position says that lost man is "enabled" by God to choose the Gospel. So it is not the natural work of the sinful nature "alone". Rather it is the supernatural work of God acting to "draw all mankind to Him" John 12:32 that enable the lost person "to choose" life or death, to choose as Romans 10 points out and is quoted in the OP.

Let's look at what you just posted.

In an attempt to prove Arminianism is an open system in which the gospel is available to all you've just stated, "the Arminian position says that lost man is 'enabled' by God to choose the Gospel," and it is not the natural work of the sinful nature. In other words, the gospel is not open to all because with God working in the individual all s/he has is his natural self and his sinful nature. You just went on recrd stating the person has to be "enabled."

Without that enabling the gospel is not open to him.

You've just contradicted your own position. You just presented an argument refuting the earlier claim! You've just agreed with me: Arminianism does not say the gospel is open to all. You have, once again, demonstrated what I told you earlier about the most frequently occurring problem in these discussions: the problem of incorrectly understanding the respective soteriologies and arguing straw men.

It's not personal, Bob. I'm not trying to be "hurtful." The facts in evidence are what they are. And what they are show the op incorrect on that one point.

 

[Phil W]

I think that you inadvertently revealed what your *functional* savior is.

Who will get the blame when my name is not found in the book of life?
Me.
Would that mean I damn myself?

I can do nothing for my own salvation without all the weapons supplied me by my Creator.
And if using those weapons causes you to think that I save myself...so be it.
All things are possible, in Christ.

 

[Phil W]

If you fail to do this, you fail to obey Him: "And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”

Amen.

 

[Josheb]

The claim about the sinful nature is that " it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, 'Without me ye can do nothing.'

And it ALSO observes that the problem is solved by the supernatural drawing of God where He says He "Draws ALL mankind to Him" John 12:32.. enabling all to choose ... establishing the basis for "fact" stated in Romans 10

As noted in the OP.

Yes, and that "And it also observes," part proves the op's statement about the openness of the system incorrect. The gospel is not open to all unless and until God acts. in the sinful state that is natural to all non-believers the gospel is closed.

When you add an "And it ALSO...." condition you are implicitly acknowledging something more, different, in addition to... is required. And since that something also happens to be "supernatural" it is not something the sinful non-believer possesses, it is not something by which the sinner can approach the gospel openly on his own.


So....

You argued against your own position in two different ways.



So....


How about acknowledging the truth and portraying the matter in a manner more consistent with Arminianism? I'm not asking you to agree with Arminius. I am asking you to acknowledge Arminius' position as he himself stated it: The Arminian system is not an open system. The gospel is not open to anyone, nor is it open to all non-believing sinners. The gospel becomes open only after God acts with salvific intent.


Can you agree to that? Understand I am prepared to quote Arminius not modern-day self-styled Arminians quite extensively to prove my case. You, once again, have begun alluding to sources without reference leaving the readers wondering where in the world you got your information. I provided a quote from Arminius stating his views on the power of the will in the sinful state. It is not a matter up for dispute. From that quote we learn what I just staed:

The Arminian system is not an open system.
The gospel is not open to anyone, nor is it open to all non-believing sinners.
The gospel becomes open only after God acts with salvific intent.​

Will you acknowledge those facts in evidence?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Amen.

Why does one who obeys the Law need saving?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm not speaking of what God actually does here, but what the fatalism of Calvinism claims he does.

It makes no difference. You speak as though you are comparable to God. It doesn't work like that. God is that high above us, that he can do as he wishes and is still altogether righteous in doing so. You are not that high above your fellow man, nor even your children, nor even your dog.

 

[GaveMeJoy]

This thread is not intended to be so much a round-and-round debate (though that could happen) but rather to "get the definitions on the table".

Essentially it is the issue of whether the Gospel invitation is for all - and "whosoever will" or is it a "selection" system where God "Selects" some for salvation and simply fails to select others thus God is the only actor/determination and the choice of the lost person is not a factor that determines anything at all.

The arminian model is an open system... where the Gospel is open to all "if anyone hears my voice and opens the door - I will come in" Rev 3.

The Calvinist model is one where God pre-selects those He is willing to save ... a selection that has nothing at all to do with the person selected.

In any case this thread is here for "the definitions".

It is not hurtful to either side - to be able to define from scripture what the point is on each side.

=====================================================
In Arminianism free will exists because of the supernatural act of God in "drawing all mankind unto Him" John 12:32 and as a result we have

Evangelism where "we BEG you on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God" 2 Cor 5
Evangelism where it is not God's WILL that ANY should perish (2 Peter 3) and yet only 'the FEW' of Matthew 7 are ultimately saved?
Evangelism where Christ "is the Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1 John 2:2
Evangelism where "God so LOVED the WORLD that He gave.."... yes really?
Evangelism where "God sent His Son to be the Savior of the WORLD" 1 John 4:14?

And when someone chooses to be lost anyway God's response is
Evangelism where "he came to His own and His OWN received Him not" John 1:11
Evangelism where Christ laments "Oh Jerusalem .. how I WANTED to spare your children.. but YOU would not"? Matt 23
He laments - "what more could I have done than that which I have already done?" Isaiah 5:4


Notice where the focus of "action" is in Rom 10

Rom 10: "9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."

========================== Calvinism============
I will leave it to Calvinists to post the texts that they feel define Calvinism's view of evangelism.

But I have seen this offered in the past (I think you have to use some significant degree of inference to get to Calvinism in these texts)
===========================================

Acts 18
4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.
5But when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul began devoting himself completely to the word, solemnly testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. 6But when they resisted and blasphemed, he shook out his garments and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.” 7Then he left there and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God, whose house was next to the synagogue. 8Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized. 9And the Lord said to Paul in the night by a vision, “Do not be afraid any longer, but go on speaking and do not be silent; 10for I am with you, and no man will attack you in order to harm you, for I have many people in this city.” 11And he settled there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.



Acts 13
42 So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.
43 Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God.

44The next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of the Lord. 45But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began contradicting the things spoken by Paul, and were blaspheming. 46Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.

47 For this is what the LORD has commanded us: "'I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.'"
48When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. 49And the word of the Lord was being spread through the whole region. 50But the Jews incited the devout women of prominence and the leading men of the city, and instigated a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district. 51But they shook off the dust of their feet in protest against them and went to Iconium. 52And the disciples were continually filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.

As I understand it - In Calvinism - if you choose salvation and that "makes a difference" then God is deprived of some level of glory/honor and this is one reason they object to the Arminian form of the Gospel.

==========================================

1. BTW two points to remember: - Both Calvinists and Arminians agree that the supernatural drawing of God is more than sufficient to enable all the choice that depravity disables. That is not "the difference" between the two views.

2. Highly subjective summations/condemnation of "the other view" that you do not share - is not considered a compelling form of definition or debate, nor is it accepted by those who do not already agree with you - as proof of anything.

The answer to this question is usually pride . The discussion certainly isn’t going to accomplish anything important in this world but will most certainly always lead to disunity and argument and disrespect. If you don’t believe me you can read the thread and you will find lots.

 

[Dave L]

Do babies sin? I understand that Adam's sin is why all death happens. But that doesn't mean we can't choose spiritual life.

The flesh hates God and only loves a "Jesus" acceptable to the flesh.

 

[renniks]

I don’t think all men feel personal conviction. Not all men have the ability to choose with personal conviction from God.

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

God is making himself known. He convicts the world, not just a few people.

 

[renniks]

Your argument was rejected by the story of Job.

Job's friends claimed that since God was good and just, Job must be a sinner and deserve his suffering. They could not accept that God is good and Job suffers as an innocent man. They were wrong and their foolish argument made God angry.

Please abandon the foolish theory that God can only be good if he does what you think he should do.

You misunderstand the book of Job. Jobs friends were blueprint theologians. They said Job must have sinned to be punished by God. But it wasn't God doing this to Job, it was Satan.
Yes God was displeased with the " friends".... .they were trying to blame him for Satan's deeds. Just like calvinists do.
And Job was wrong about what was happening too, but God was pleased with him, because he still trusted when he did not understand.

 

[renniks]

Does not matter for the sake of this discussion. The soteriological views that currently bear his name have stood as such for the last 1600 years. We do have some of his writings (such as his letter to Demetrias) and some of what he said I would agree with (such as the inherent mortality of Adam and Eve); he was, after all a Christian cleric who had previously been recognized as both by the church and his peers. He was wrong about many conditions involving salvation and modern-day self-acknowledging Pelagians openly accept those positions as Pelagian (such as "original sin," and the unsullied condition of the will). A simple three second Google search would have answered that question for you.

Yes, it would have confirmed we only have secondary source evidence of what he really believed.

 

[BobRyan]

The flesh hates God and only loves a "Jesus" acceptable to the flesh.

As noted in the OP - both sides agree that the sinful nature alone is not inclined to salvation. The point of difference is that the Arminian view is that God can draw a lost person , and enable them to choose the Gospel... the Calvinist position appears to be that God can only enable an already-saved person to accept the Gospel.