“What Calvinism And Arminianism Have In Common”. ?

[jax5434]

This is an excerpt from an article by Edgar Fudge I found over on the Apologetics Index. The title is “What Calvinism And Arminianism Have In Common”. He listed what he thought were commonalities in six couplets that I have listed below. I don’t know if this is really a debate topic, I am just curious to see if Calvinist and Arminians on here really can agree on these.

Couplet 1:

Every accountable person deserves to be lost.

No accountable person deserves to be saved.

Couplet 2:

God takes no pleasure in the final destruction of any.

God finds pleasure in the salvation of every person who is saved.

Couplet 3:

No one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him or her.

Every person whom the Father has given to Jesus will come.

Couplet 4:

The ultimate basis of condemnation is the lost person’s own works.

The ultimate basis of salvation is the work of Jesus.

Couplet 5:

Salvation occurred objectively two thousand years ago in Jesus’ work.

Salvation occurs subjectively as each person believes the gospel.

Couplet 6:

Every person finally l0st will have knowingly rejected God’s goodness.

Every person finally saved will have accepted God’s goodness as it was known to him or her.


I confess that I am not really comfortable with the 2nd line of #6.


God Bless

Jax

 

[hedrick]

Certainly there are commonalities. Generally the OP outlines some of them. However

1. I'm not so sure Calvin would say "God takes no pleasure in the final destruction of any." Indeed one can argue that God should take pleasure in doing justice, though I'm not specifically defending either position.

6. Arminians are generally inclusivists. The wording of 6 seems to reflect that, particularly the 2nd line.

 

[jax5434]

Certainly there are commonalities. Generally the OP outlines some of them. However

1. I'm not so sure Calvin would say "God takes no pleasure in the final destruction of any." Indeed one can argue that God should take pleasure in doing justice, though I'm not specifically defending either position.

6. Arminians are generally inclusivists. The wording of 6 seems to reflect that, particularly the 2nd line.

I agree with you on #6. The "as it was known to him/her" strikes me as a little to inclusive.

 

[hedrick]

A typical summary of the situation is that Arminianism originally agreed with Calvin about original sin. They agreed that we could only become Christ's followers by God's gracious work that makes it possible for us to have faith. However Arminianism believed that God made that available to everyone, so that what happened depended upon how we respond. Calvin believed that it all depends upon God, who decides which people to regenerate.

Inclusivism isn't logically required or prohibited by either position. You could imagine someone taking the Arminian view, and saying that the only way for someone to respond in a saving way is through the Gospel. You could imagine someone taking the Calvinist position and saying that God chose people in all cultures and religions.

I believe at least the first alternative has been taken by some. But I think traditional Calvinists have always rejected inclusivism.

I'm not, of course, a traditional Calvinist.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

This is an excerpt from an article by Edgar Fudge I found over on the Apologetics Index. The title is “What Calvinism And Arminianism Have In Common”. He listed what he thought were commonalities in six couplets that I have listed below. I don’t know if this is really a debate topic, I am just curious to see if Calvinist and Arminians on here really can agree on these.

Couplet 1:

Every accountable person deserves to be lost.

No accountable person deserves to be saved.

Couplet 2:

God takes no pleasure in the final destruction of any.

God finds pleasure in the salvation of every person who is saved.

Couplet 3:

No one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him or her.

Every person whom the Father has given to Jesus will come.

Couplet 4:

The ultimate basis of condemnation is the lost person’s own works.

The ultimate basis of salvation is the work of Jesus.

Couplet 5:

Salvation occurred objectively two thousand years ago in Jesus’ work.

Salvation occurs subjectively as each person believes the gospel.

Couplet 6:

Every person finally l0st will have knowingly rejected God’s goodness.

Every person finally saved will have accepted God’s goodness as it was known to him or her.


I confess that I am not really comfortable with the 2nd line of #6.


God Bless

Jax

I agree with 1-5. One reason I am hesitant on 6, has to do with whether all infants whom die in infancy are elect in Christ, regenerated by the Holy Spirit. I do believe the children of believers whom die in infancy are elect in Christ via the Covenant of Redemption and promises of God to His people. For the same reason I hesitant on the second statement of 6. I would qualify "accepted" with by grace through the gift of faith with the Spirit leading and guiding in a manner of "wooing" which for all intents and purposes so far as we are concerned is "irresistible".

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

1. I'm not so sure Calvin would say "God takes no pleasure in the final destruction of any." Indeed one can argue that God should take pleasure in doing justice, though I'm not specifically defending either position.

If the statement were fleshed out, I hope most if not all would agree God takes pleasure in whatever He does in the sense of the goodness brought about by Holy justice, the result of His righteous judgement, but it is more complicated as we see in Scripture in passages like Jesus weeping over Jerusalem. So I am inclined to think there are two sides to the pleasure coin, in the way it can be said that God is pleased in His prescriptive will, on the other hand, the same cannot be said of His permissive will where that which is contrary to His prescriptive will displeases Him, specifically any and all sin, and yet there is a mystery to His sovereign will.

 

[Anto9us]

Couplet 3:

No one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him or her.

Every person whom the Father has given to Jesus will come.

The second line of #3 smacks of irresistible grace, most Arminians believe it can be resisted.
I think almost all Arminians would agree to the first line of #3, and to all your other points

 

[twin1954]

If the statement were fleshed out, I hope most if not all would agree God takes pleasure in whatever He does in the sense of self-pleasure the sense and goodness brought about by justice, but it is more complicated as we see in Scripture in passages like Jesus weeping over Jerusalem. So I am inclined to think there are two sides to the pleasure coin, in the way it can be said that God in his prescriptive will is pleased, but there is much in His permissive will which displeases Him, specifically any and all sin, and yet there is a mystery to His sovereign will.

First I will admit that I haven't read the whole thread so forgive me for just jumping in. God is not a physcopath that takes pleasure in the death of the wicked. He is in no way satisfied by the eternal destruction and damnation of the wicked.

Sin is such an affront to God that nothing can satisfy His strict justice. That is why Hell is eternal.

While He takes no pleasure, or satisfaction, from the death of the wicked it is their just reward. He must uphold His justice and maintain His righteousness. He would not be God otherwise.

Though He gives the sinner exactly what righteousness and justice demands He derives no satisfaction or pleasure in it. He simply does what is right. He can do no other.

His glory isn't in the destruction of the wicked but in the sovereign mercy to some whom He has chosen to deliver from His wrath and show mercy in The beloved Son.

We would all suffer under His unmitigated wrath except He chose to deliver some according to His sovereign mecy in Christ Jesus the Lord.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

First I will admit that I haven't read the whole thread so forgive me for just jumping in. God is not a physcopath that takes pleasure in the death of the wicked. He is in no way satisfied by the eternal destruction and damnation of the wicked.

Sin is such an affront to God that nothing can satisfy His strict justice. That is why Hell is eternal.

While He takes no pleasure, or satisfaction, from the death of the wicked it is their just reward. He must uphold His justice and maintain His righteousness. He would not be God otherwise.

Though He gives the sinner exactly what righteousness and justice demands He derives no satisfaction or pleasure in it. He simply does what is right. He can do no other.

His glory isn't in the destruction of the wicked but in the sovereign mercy to some whom He has chosen to deliver from His wrath and show mercy in The beloved Son.

We would all suffer under His unmitigated wrath except He chose to deliver some according to His sovereign mecy in Christ Jesus the Lord.

Apparently there exists tension in the will of God. While I agree "He is in no way satisfied by the eternal destruction and damnation of the wicked." is He not satisfied in carrying out His righteous judgement?

"While He takes no pleasure, or satisfaction, from the death of the wicked it is their just reward. He must uphold His justice and maintain His righteousness. He would not be God otherwise."

So the tension arises in God doing what He wills not to do...? Yet whatsoever comes to pass is in one sense or another His sovereign will yes?

"His glory isn't in the destruction of the wicked but in the sovereign mercy to some whom He has chosen to deliver from His wrath and show mercy in The beloved Son. We would all suffer under His unmitigated wrath except He chose to deliver some according to His sovereign mecy in Christ Jesus the Lord."

Thank you Jesus and amen! But at the same time I cannot help but feel sympathy for those He has chosen not to deliver....it's a sobering thought.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Hey twin, I found an article by John Piper you might be interested in: Does God delight in Destroying Sinners? As Dr. Piper notes "God's emotional life must be infinitely complex." I agree which is why at some point one must as a finite creature daily battling with sin must accept to the extent He has not expressly revealed in Scripture, mystery in the will of God (mentioned in #6), where there is not clarity.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Found another article, this one is on Monergism, consists of quotes by John Calvin, and is titled "God Does Not Take Pleasure in the Death of the One Who Dies"

Trust in the Lord, take refuge in the Lord, rest in Christ, pray for peace that surpasses all understanding.

 

[twin1954]

Apparently there exists tension in the will of God. While I agree "He is in no way satisfied by the eternal destruction and damnation of the wicked." is He not satisfied in carrying out His righteous judgement?

"While He takes no pleasure, or satisfaction, from the death of the wicked it is their just reward. He must uphold His justice and maintain His righteousness. He would not be God otherwise."

So the tension arises in God doing what He wills not to do...? Yet whatsoever comes to pass is in one sense or another His sovereign will yes?

"His glory isn't in the destruction of the wicked but in the sovereign mercy to some whom He has chosen to deliver from His wrath and show mercy in The beloved Son. We would all suffer under His unmitigated wrath except He chose to deliver some according to His sovereign mecy in Christ Jesus the Lord."

Thank you Jesus and amen! But at the same time I cannot help but feel sympathy for those He has chosen not to deliver....it's a sobering thought.

I wouldn't call it tension as He is perfectly content in Himself. Nothing disturbs His complete and utter satisfaction, in the sense that He needs nothing from us nor do we add anything to Him, in Himself.

He takes pleasure in the Son and all that the Son has redeemed including creation which waits for that time of restoration in Christ. I don't recall a passage of Scripture that says He takes pleasure anywhere else except in the Son and those who are in Him.

I would submit that He simply gives the damned no consideration except as they are used to glorify Christ and do good for His people. He uses them and nothing else. The Bible nowhere says or suggests that He has any kind of love for them.

I know that many will throw John 3:16 at me but when taken in its context it says nothing about loving the reprobate.

 

[twin1954]

Found another article, this one is on Monergism, consists of quotes by John Calvin, and is titled "God Does Not Take Pleasure in the Death of the One Who Dies"

Trust in the Lord, take refuge in the Lord, rest in Christ, pray for peace that surpasses all understanding.

Hey twin, I found an article by John Piper you might be interested in: Does God delight in Destroying Sinners? As Dr. Piper notes "God's emotional life must be infinitely complex." I agree which is why at some point one must as a finite creature daily battling with sin must accept to the extent He has not expressly revealed in Scripture, mystery in the will of God (mentioned in #6), where there is not clarity.

I will give them a read when I have more time. Thanks.

 

[sdowney717]

Found another article, this one is on Monergism, consists of quotes by John Calvin, and is titled "God Does Not Take Pleasure in the Death of the One Who Dies"

Trust in the Lord, take refuge in the Lord, rest in Christ, pray for peace that surpasses all understanding.

Everything God does is glorious.
Even the ministry of death (condemnation), but the ministry of righteousness, of His mercy is much more glorious, meaning to me He takes delight in showing His mercy to His people, to show to them His goodness forever into all the ages to come.

2 Corinthians 3
4 And we have such trust through Christ toward God.
5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the [a]Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Glory of the New Covenant
7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. 10 For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. 11 For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.

12 Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech— 13 unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. 15 But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. 16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

 

[Don Maurer]

This will be an attempt to have some organized rambling, or to present some disorganized clarity. I think I am going to tell you what I think, but I am not sure. So far, I have been jokingly serious. I will present some worthwhile nonsense. The reason for all these words is because I do wrestle with this topic. Now to actually begin.....

I am aware of Ezekiel 18:23. I am not sure that I can side with those who want to present this statement and suggest that God agonizes over the punishment of a sinner, I am not sure how the words of the verse say that. Some present God has having love to the exclusion of all other attributes. I do not want to go so far as that distortion. Verse 23 says...

Ezekiel 18:23 Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked? saith the Lord Jehovah; and not rather that he should return from his way, and live?

The statement is repeated in the same chapter... see verse 32. It is also found in 33:11.

The context chapter 18 concerns Israel as a Covenant Community. The proverb Ezekiel quotes in Verse 2 says "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?" Ezekiel is speaking to those in exile. They were blaming the fathers of Israel for breaking the covenant, but they were covenant breakers also. The sons were claiming that God is not just in punishing the sons for the sins of the fathers. In verse 25 the sins say that "Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel: Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?"

Ezekiel stresses the justice of God. There are several statements in the chapter on God's justice such as verse 4... "the soul that sinneth, it shall die." Later in verse 9 he says... "hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept mine ordinances, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord Jehovah." In verse 17 Ezekiel concludes... "he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live." Ezekiel devotes a lot of material in the context to the concept that God is just in judging the Israel of captivity (the sons) as well as Israel (the fathers) that was taken into captivity.

I am not sure I see the words of verse 23 as saying that God grieves over lost sinners. Rather, It says he does not take pleasure in it. The passage says what God does not do, not what is actually does feel. The passage seems to stress that he does take pleasure in the repentance of sinners.

Other passages speaks of the wrath of God upon sinners. Does this mean that somehow there is a satisfaction of wrath, but not pleasure?

Also, what is "death." Am I to take this as a covenant issue, such as the death of Israel, or the repentance of Israel?

Verse 31 is also intriguing. It calls upon Israel to regenerate itself. (yeah, right Ezekiel) Ezekiel requests Israel to change its own heart. But can a leopard change its own spots? (cf Jeremiah 13:23) Verse 31 seems to go back to Deuteronomy 10:16 "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked." Really? Circumcise your own heart! Now that would be free will!!! This sounds like some post-exilic pelagian theology. Of course the scriptures is clear. Deuteronomy 29:4 says "but Jehovah hath not given you a heart to know, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day." And 30:6 says the circumcised heart is the work of God. Heart circumcision is clearly the work of God, and not man. Why would Ezekiel call upon Israel to circumcise its own heart?

If the object of the universe were Gods pleasure, why does he not regenerate all men, and make a few zillion more!!. God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, but he takes glory in it.

Well, time for miscellaneous thoughts is over. Gotta go.