The calvinism versus arminianism debate.

Presbyterian Continuist · Nov 21, 2018

redleghunter said:
You and I both know that is neither Calvinism nor Reformed doctrine.

According to his writing, he placed himself somewhere in the middle between Calvinism and Arminianism.

Have you actually read his writing and his biography, or have you just read articles written against him by those motivated by a critical religious spirit?

Presbyterian Continuist · Nov 21, 2018

redleghunter said:
You can respond to his statements on doctrine from what I posted and linked. They quoted from his systematic theology tome.

If the article is wrong that he denied the atonement, for the forgiveness of sins, imputed righteousness and Justification by faith then please point the errors out.

This has nothing to do with Calvinism but the Gospel of Grace.

Here’s more:

This declaration was to be pronounced at the beginning of the Christian life, not in the middle or at the end. The key words in the evangelical doctrine are "forensic" (legal) and "imputation" (crediting one’s account, as opposed to the idea of "infusion" of a righteousness within a person’s soul). Knowing all of this, Finney declares,

"But for sinners to be forensically pronounced just, is impossible and absurd... As we shall see, there are many conditions, while there is but one ground, of the justification of sinners ... As has already been said, there can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense, but upon the ground of universal, perfect, and uninterrupted obedience to law. This is of course denied by those who hold that gospel justification, or the justification of penitent sinners, is of the nature of a forensic or judicial justification. They hold to the legal maxim that what a man does by another he does by himself, and therefore the law regards Christ’s obedience as ours, on the ground that he obeyed for us."

To this, Finney replies: "The doctrine of imputed righteousness, or that Christ’s obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption." After all, Christ’s righteousness "could do no more than justify himself. It can never be imputed to us ... it was naturally impossible, then, for him to obey in our behalf " This "representing of the atonement as the ground of the sinner’s justification has been a sad occasion of stumbling to many" (pp.320-2).

The view that faith is the sole condition of justification is "the antinomian view," Finney asserts. "We shall see that perseverance in obedience to the end of life is also a condition of justification. Some theologians have made justification a condition of sanctification, instead of making sanctification a condition of justification. But this we shall see is an erroneous view of the subject." (pp.326-7).

The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney | Monergism

Sanctification a condition for Justification. He really said that.

You must remember that Finney was trained as a lawyer, and so has a lawyer's mind. He writes like a lawyer, and he said that when he preached he viewed himself as a lawyer pleading God's case to sinners.

As far as his view on law and grace, he is merely reflecting James, who said that if a person says he has faith let him show it by his works. He agrees with the Puritan Joseph Alleine (1672) who wrote that the evidence of true conversion is a total observance of Christ's laws. Finney calls the same thing "moral law". Alleine says that a truly converted Christian has to have total holiness otherwise he will never see God. Finney says the same thing. Both will agree that morality does not save a person, but morality is necessary for a successful Christian life.

Radagast · Nov 21, 2018

Apologetic_Warrior said:
None of the Arminians I've known offline throughout my life even refer to themselves as Arminians, and many if not most, may not be familar with the terms Arminian and Calvinist to even draw the distinctions.

I agree that many Arminians don't refer to themselves as Arminians, but when you engage them in conversation it's clear where they stand.

Most people are familiar with the term "Calvinist," even if only as a pejorative.

Radagast · Nov 21, 2018

Oscarr said:
According to his writing, he placed himself somewhere in the middle between Calvinism and Arminianism.

Really? Where does he say that?

I'm not sure how it's possible to be "somewhere in the middle between Calvinism and Arminianism." I can't see any middle ground there to occupy.

Most people I've met who say that they are "somewhere in the middle between Calvinism and Arminianism" are in fact 100% Arminian, in that they agree with all the points of Arminian theology.

Presbyterian Continuist · Nov 21, 2018

Radagast said:
Really? Where does he say that?

I'm not sure how it's possible to be "somewhere in the middle between Calvinism and Arminianism."

Most people I've met who say that they are "somewhere in the middle between Calvinism and Arminianism" are in fact 100% Arminian.

I guess you have not read his Systematic Theology because he states it there.

Radagast · Nov 21, 2018

Oscarr said:
I guess you have not read his Systematic Theology because he states it there.

I just downloaded the book, and searched for every use of the word "Arminian"

No, Finney does not say that he is "somewhere in the middle between Calvinism and Arminianism."

What the book does indicate is that he diverges from both the Arminians of his day and the Calvinists of his day by espousing perfectionism. That's actually an entirely different debate.

Presbyterian Continuist · Nov 21, 2018

Radagast said:
I just downloaded the book, and searched for every use of the word "Arminian"

No, he does not say that he is "somewhere in the middle between Calvinism and Arminianism."

What the book does indicate is that he diverges from both the Arminians of his day and the Calvinists of his day by espousing perfectionism. That's actually an entirely different debate.

He might have worded it differently. But I concede that he did teach perfectionism. Joseph Alleine taught basically the same and said that a truly converted Christian has total holiness, which sounds like perfectionism to me.

Finney was very strong on confession of every known sin, and then asking the Holy Spirit to reveal any further sin we don't know about.

When God made Himself known to me, one of the first things I knew I had to do was to do the same, and so I went as far back as I could remember and confessed every known sin I knew about. By the time I had finished, I felt a whole new freedom.

Actually, this is very similar to Neil Anderson's "The Bondage Breaker" in which he gets his client who is suffering from a demonic bondage, to go through every known sin, traumatic event, occult and/or false cult involvement, to get rid of the garbage in the person's life that the demon is feeding on. When a person has been through all that, the person senses a release from the bondage and a whole new freedom. Perhaps the principle is the same for gaining any type of freedom in our walk with Christ.

Finney is not the first person to teach total confession of sin to God. Joseph Alleine in his book "Alarm to the Unconverted" writes that confession of all known sin is a prerequisite to true conversion. He says that Jesus came to save us from our sins not in them. Therefore a truly converted Christian is totally righteous and holy, renouncing every sin, and keeping absolute strictness over his flesh. Very similar to Finney. Perhaps that is why Alleine in his short life (died in his late thirties) won thousands to Christ as well.

RDKirk · Nov 21, 2018

dms1972 said:
And is debating Calvinists or Arminians one of those tasks?

I get what you are saying , but I'd rather hear from the person who said it what they mean.

You did not in the slightest get what I was saying, if you asked that question of me.

Presbyterian Continuist · Nov 21, 2018

dms1972 said:
I didn't quite understand when you said the "debate becomes a damp squib when a believer holds to the promises of God concerning his salvation, regardless of the decrees of God."

It is because God has made decrees in Heaven which are not made entirely clear to us. They are mysteries. Election and Predestination are mysteries. We are not given enough information to fully understand how they work in God's plan of salvation for mankind.

But we have the invitation to turn to Christ, believe that He rose from the dead, and if we repent, give our lives up to Him as Lord, we shall be saved. Those are clear promises and we can understand them and put our faith in them. Once we do that, then we will get to heaven and then maybe we might understand election and predestination more fully.

bcbsr · Nov 21, 2018

dms1972 said:
I wonder sometimes if this debate is fruitful, it does go on a bit. Imagine if John Wesley (an Arminian) and George Whitefield (a Calvinist) had remain locked in argument with each other for years and not engaged in any evangelistic outreach. Instead they both parted company and went their own ways, and continued to preach the Gospel, as a result more people heard the gospel than if they had continued to minister together. As far as I can see both Arminians and Calvinists preach the Gospel.

I've noticed that typically neither side tends to bring in their particular theological nuances into play when doing evangelism. For example take Calvinism where essentially their position is that people are predestined before birth to either eternal life or eternal damnation and nothing in this life can change that. Yet when asked the question, "What must I do to be saved?" as the Phillipian jailer asked, they would tend to respond the same as the apostle, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved", because that's what the Bible clearly states. Yet there is a sort of hypocrisy in doing so in that such a statement is contrary to their particular soteriology insomuch as they would privately claim that the person was already saved at birth and there was nothing he had to do to be saved.

bcbsr · Nov 21, 2018

redleghunter said:
You can respond to his statements on doctrine from what I posted and linked. They quoted from his systematic theology tome.

If the article is wrong that he denied the atonement, for the forgiveness of sins, imputed righteousness and Justification by faith then please point the errors out.

This has nothing to do with Calvinism but the Gospel of Grace.

Here’s more:

This declaration was to be pronounced at the beginning of the Christian life, not in the middle or at the end. The key words in the evangelical doctrine are "forensic" (legal) and "imputation" (crediting one’s account, as opposed to the idea of "infusion" of a righteousness within a person’s soul). Knowing all of this, Finney declares,

"But for sinners to be forensically pronounced just, is impossible and absurd... As we shall see, there are many conditions, while there is but one ground, of the justification of sinners ... As has already been said, there can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense, but upon the ground of universal, perfect, and uninterrupted obedience to law. This is of course denied by those who hold that gospel justification, or the justification of penitent sinners, is of the nature of a forensic or judicial justification. They hold to the legal maxim that what a man does by another he does by himself, and therefore the law regards Christ’s obedience as ours, on the ground that he obeyed for us."

To this, Finney replies: "The doctrine of imputed righteousness, or that Christ’s obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption." After all, Christ’s righteousness "could do no more than justify himself. It can never be imputed to us ... it was naturally impossible, then, for him to obey in our behalf " This "representing of the atonement as the ground of the sinner’s justification has been a sad occasion of stumbling to many" (pp.320-2).

The view that faith is the sole condition of justification is "the antinomian view," Finney asserts. "We shall see that perseverance in obedience to the end of life is also a condition of justification. Some theologians have made justification a condition of sanctification, instead of making sanctification a condition of justification. But this we shall see is an erroneous view of the subject." (pp.326-7).

The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney | Monergism

Sanctification a condition for Justification. He really said that.

I would agree with your point concerning the last statement, that essentially Finney was basically promoting a salvation by works scenario. But I understand his point concerning imputed righteousness and I agree with him that it is not Christ's righteous living during his earthly ministry that we were imputed with, as if we lived his life. But I believe in imputed righteousness which is neither Calvinistic nor that of Finney. That is Jesus' unjustified suffering appeased God's wrath for our sins and consequently reckoned us righteous because of his death. That is, it wasn't his life, but his death that appeased God on our behalf.

Furthermore I also disagree with Calvinism in regards to the condition for salvation. Under Calvinism one is born predestined to eternal life or eternal damnation, and nothing in this life will change that destiny. Which means that faith is not a condition for salvation but rather election is. And as under Calvinism election occurs prior to birth and has nothing to do with God's foreknowledge of a person's future decisions, therefore people are born saved and eternally secure. Faith does nothing to change that. That concept is flies in the face of a clear reading of scripture.

In light of their theology how should a Calvinist answer the question, "What must I do to be saved?" If they kept to their theology (which they typically don't when doing evangelism - a bit of hypocrisy there) their answer would not be consistent with how the apostle answers the question.

JoeP222w · Nov 21, 2018

dms1972 said:
I wonder sometimes if this debate is fruitful, it does go on a bit. Imagine if John Wesley (an Arminian) and George Whitefield (a Calvinist) had remain locked in argument with each other for years and not engaged in any evangelistic outreach. Instead they both parted company and went their own ways, and continued to preach the Gospel, as a result more people heard the gospel than if they had continued to minister together. As far as I can see both Arminians and Calvinists preach the Gospel.

The truth matters. One side of the argument is man centered with man as sovereign. The other side is God centered with God as Sovereign. One is Biblical, one is not.

Calvinists and Arminians do not preach the same gospel.

BBAS 64 · Nov 21, 2018

bcbsr said:
I would agree with your point concerning the last statement, that essentially Finney was basically promoting a salvation by works scenario. But I understand his point concerning imputed righteousness and I agree with him that it is not Christ's righteous living during his earthly ministry that we were imputed with, as if we lived his life. But I believe in imputed righteousness which is neither Calvinistic nor that of Finney. That is Jesus' unjustified suffering appeased God's wrath for our sins and consequently reckoned us righteous because of his death. That is, it wasn't his life, but his death that appeased God on our behalf.

Furthermore I also disagree with Calvinism in regards to the condition for salvation. Under Calvinism one is born predestined to eternal life or eternal damnation, and nothing in this life will change that destiny. Which means that faith is not a condition for salvation but rather election is. And as under Calvinism election occurs prior to birth and has nothing to do with God's foreknowledge of a person's future decisions, therefore people are born saved and eternally secure. Faith does nothing to change that. That concept is flies in the face of a clear reading of scripture.

In light of their theology how should a Calvinist answer the question, "What must I do to be saved?" If they kept to their theology (which they typically don't when doing evangelism - a bit of hypocrisy there) their answer would not be consistent with how the apostle answers the question.

Good day,

I am with the Calvinist missionary William Carey on this "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved,"

The Gospel is the Power unto Salvation, and we must preach it to the heathen.

Edited to add:

Cotton Mathers has a book by that name "What Must I do to be saved"
I also Think the DJ Kennedy in Evangelism explosion covers that question as well.

In Him,

Bill

Mountainmike · Nov 21, 2018

It is interesting that Catholicism has two schools of thought, thomism vs molinism which tread similar ground not quite the same. Catholicism permits either view - neither is an article of faith.

ICONO'CLAST · Nov 21, 2018

Oscarr said:
It is interesting that Charles Finney had constant revival throughout all the years of his ministry. Something strangely absent in those who criticized and are still criticizing him. I have his Systematic Theology and have read it through. Looks pretty sound to me. The Scripture says, "By their fruit you will know them." Finney's ministry brought thousands to Christ throughout his ministry and many of these conversions resulted from remarkable events where people became convicted of sin just in his presence. I just wonder how many are convicted of sin in the presence of those who criticize him? Zero, I think.

Finney lamented that his ministry was a failure and that if he could do it over again he would do it differently. I will get you an exact quote when I get online.

ICONO'CLAST · Nov 21, 2018

There is no real debate here. There is truth and those who are still learning the truth. Calvinism is the truth and people know it, but struggle with some portions of it for emotional reasons, or having been mis-taught.

ICONO'CLAST · Nov 21, 2018

gordonhooker said:
I would suggest that God has chosen everyone, the question is do we accept that invitation.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.
(John 3:16 NRSV)
Accordance Link

This is not scriptural teaching whatsoever.You are welcome to share your thoughts however as you have.

Radagast · Nov 21, 2018

Mountainmike said:
It is interesting that Catholicism has two schools of thought, thomism vs molinism which tread similar ground not quite the same. Catholicism permits either view - neither is an article of faith.

In 1607, the Pope announced that he would eventually decide which one was correct, but that hasn't happened yet. I understand that Thomism is particularly associated with the Dominican order.

RDKirk · Nov 21, 2018

JoeP222w said:
The truth matters. One side of the argument is man centered with man as sovereign. The other side is God centered with God as Sovereign. One is Biblical, one is not.

Calvinists and Arminians do not preach the same gospel.

I think the gospel --the message that saves--is thinner than that.

I don't think the Philippian jailer needed to have all that explained to him before he could accept Jesus, and I'm pretty sure Cornelius considered himself among the "not chosen."

Dave L · Nov 21, 2018

Both Arminians and Calvinists are saved the exact same way. The Calvinist believes the gospel when he or she hears it. And the Arminian believes the gospel when he or she hears it. The Calvinist's first step of faith is to repent. The Arminian's first step of faith is to choose to believe, the basic form of repentance. But both act out in some way because they believe. Jesus says whoever believes has eternal life.

The calvinism versus arminianism debate.

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

comes and goes

comes and goes

Senior Veteran

comes and goes

Senior Veteran

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

comes and goes

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Similar threads