Arminian Or Calvinist?

[Albion]

I don't think that scripture clearly points one way or the other on the subject of Arminianism and Calvinism. However, what I do know is that the early Christians (and along with the first 1500 years of Christianity) all believed in free will. These men studied at the feet of the apostles, and possibly some of them studied with Jesus. If predestination was true, then I'm confident that the Early Church Fathers would have known that, instead of having a wholesale acceptance of free will. Thus, I would think it arrogant for me to assert that my private interpretation of scripture is better than the knowledge that the Early Church Fathers got straight from the apostles.

There certainly is an argument to be made from consensus. Do I take it correctly then that you also accept (for the same reason you outlined above) millennialism, that women cannot be in the ordained ministry, that bishops who derive their powers from having been given them by previous bishops are the only valid rulers of congregations, and/or that once one is baptised and then relapses there is no forgiveness possible?

It could be argued that since those were once the standard in the Christian churches, they must be right always. (BTW, it is not true that freewill was the only accepted POV for the first 1500 years.)

 

[arationalchristian]

There certainly is an argument to be made from consensus. Do I take it correctly then that you also accept (for the same reason you outlined above) millennialism

I'm afraid to say that I don't have an opinion on millennialism; I am simply not educated enough on it to have a legitimate one. However, hopefully from my other answers you can see what I'm getting at anyway.
What I'd like you to keep in mind is that I don't believe in the consensus of now (since that would be committing the fallacy of argument ad populum), but I am very interested indeed as to what the very first Christians believed. If there is a subject on which the early church fathers were pretty much unanimous on, we can take from that that's because the apostles made it perfectly clear to them.
I read a study a month or two ago which said that myth tends to creep into cultures a few generations after the source. If we look at the Bible, we see that all the New Testament was written within a few generations of the death of Christ, and it was after that time (circa. AD 200) that heretic gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas started to appear. Thus, it's really those first couple of centuries that I think are really important (not to say that the next few centuries are unimportant by any means)

that women cannot be in the ordained ministry

Hmmm, well this is an interesting one. There are records of women being church leaders relatively early on in Christianity. However, there are also letters which suggest that the early church fathers did not believe that women should be ordained. It's a tough one, and not one I'll commit to either way at this point in time.

that bishops who derive their powers from having been given them by previous bishops are the only valid rulers of congregations

There's no doubt that apostolic succession was pretty much universally accepted in the early church (Although, please note, that doesn't mean that only bishops can be leaders of congregations!). I tried to find the wikipedia link to an article I read a while ago about this, but it's either gone or it was on a different page.
My belief on this is that apostolic succession certainly was true in the early years of Christianity; that there was a lineage which was passed down. Whether that lineage is still going to the modern day Catholic church/Orthodox Church/Anglican Church is another matter and one that I am looking into, and (once again!) not sure on.
Hopefully you get the gist of what I mean about early consensus now.

It could be argued that since those were once the standard in the Christian churches, they must be right always.

Truth doesn't change, brother.
The early Christians believed that the Church was infallible - let me quote Wikipedia:
"The most basic foundation of the Magisterium, the apostolic succession of bishops and their authority as protectors of the faith, was one of the few points that was rarely debated by the Church Fathers. The doctrine was developed by Ignatius of Antioch (and others) in the face of Gnosticism, expounded by others such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine, and by the end of the second century AD was universally accepted by the bishops."
In fairness, Wikipedia also says:
"However, this understanding was not universally accepted. One of the most famous critics of the episcopal corruption was the influential theologian Origen. Throughout his life, many of Origen’s writings were considered to be questionably orthodox, and he seemed to espouse the idea of a teaching authority based on theological expertise rather than, or at least along with, apostolic succession."
... But Origen was writing in the early third century - about that sort of time which those heretical gospels I mentioned earlier started to appear. The opinion of those who were very early fathers is clear.

So, if the Church declared something then, it's true now. That's consistent with 1 Timothy 3:15, which declares the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth.
Note: I'm not a Catholic, although I am looking into Catholicism and there's an outside chance I could convert. But I don't see how anyone could deny the unanimous writings of church leaders writing at the same time as the books of the New Testament were written

(BTW, it is not true that freewill was the only accepted POV for the first 1500 years.)

I'll give you that not all Christians strictly believed in free will - I believe St Augustus had some sort of opinion on election - but as far as I'm aware, no Christian believed in the sort of predestination which Calvinists adhere to. Within the first few centuries, I do not know of any reference to predestination; certainly not any reference without also incorporating free will.

 

[Vince53]

Good points, but I would like to point out that predestination IS true, and it is taught in Scripture. God predestined all who would accept Christ to be adopted as sons and to be confirmed to the image of His Son.

However, no one is predestined to accept or reject Christ.

 

[Albion]

I'm afraid to say that I don't have an opinion on millennialism; I am simply not educated enough on it to have a legitimate one. However, hopefully from my other answers you can see what I'm getting at anyway.
What I'd like you to keep in mind is that I don't believe in the consensus of now (since that would be committing the fallacy of argument ad populum), but I am very interested indeed as to what the very first Christians believed. If there is a subject on which the early church fathers were pretty much unanimous on, we can take from that that's because the apostles made it perfectly clear to them.

That's what believers in "Holy Tradition" always say--that whatever they believe MUST have been handed down to them from the Apostles, whether or not there is any evidence of it being so. That absolutely rules out the possibility of any speculation getting into the stream of Christian thought from some other source, which any reasonable historian would be skeptical of. Apostolic Succession, for instance, is always said to be from the Apostles, but we know that it originated only in the late first century and was just a way of guaranteeing, as closely as possible, that the preacher had some credentials. There was no Apostolic teaching being handed down on the matter at all.

I read a study a month or two ago which said that myth tends to creep into cultures a few generations after the source. If we look at the Bible, we see that all the New Testament was written within a few generations of the death of Christ, and it was after that time (circa. AD 200) that heretic gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas started to appear. Thus, it's really those first couple of centuries that I think are really important (not to say that the next few centuries are unimportant by any means)

I'd agree to that, but then we can't just assume that everything that became commonplace in the Church originated with the first churches. The Gnostic Gospels are good examples of ideas creeping into the already established church and ones that were rejected, but by that same token, we may also have ones that were not rejected but also were not Apostolic.

There are records of women being church leaders relatively early on in Christianity.

But never as clergy.

However, there are also letters which suggest that the early church fathers did not believe that women should be ordained. It's a tough one, and not one I'll commit to either way at this point in time.

Well, that's my point. If you have an open mind about something like that which has no scriptural basis and absolutely no example in the history of the early church, why apply a completely different standard when considering predestination vs. freewill?

Truth doesn't change, brother.

No one argues that it does.

The early Christians believed that the Church was infallible - let me quote Wikipedia:

Please don't think that Wikipedia is authoritative. It's just whatever the last person accessing the page wrote there. That said, I have to ask you again...if you feel that that which was apparently always part of the early church is, ergo, the truth, how can you not take the whole package? Apostolic Succession was not, nor were the other items I presented to you, so how can we say that freewill stands apart from all of that? To be consistent, you'd have to reject Apostolic Succession, women pastors, confession, and a host of other doctrines that got hammered out in the present form only over centuries but were not there in the beginning. Yet when it comes to freewill....


It is just as possible to be right on the basis of a proper understanding of scripture, whenever that occurred, as any of these other doctrinal matters.

Note: I'm not a Catholic, although I am looking into Catholicism and there's an outside chance I could convert. But I don't see how anyone could deny the unanimous writings of church leaders writing at the same time as the books of the New Testament were written

None of them WAS writing at the time of the writing of the NT books! All are of a later time and did not agree among themselves.

Anyway, I made my observation and that's probably all there is to say. We have to decide what it is that governs our doctrinal conclusions. I say that it's the Word of God. Others say something else, but for me, they don't present anything like a consistent and compelling case.

 

[Albion]

Good points, but I would like to point out that predestination IS true, and it is taught in Scripture. God predestined all who would accept Christ to be adopted as sons and to be confirmed to the image of His Son.

However, no one is predestined to accept or reject Christ.

Sounds like you're contradicting what you said in the first paragraph.

Yes, predestination DOES mean that God chooses those whom he will bring to faith.

 

[arationalchristian]

That's what believers in "Holy Tradition" always say--that whatever they believe MUST have been handed down to them from the Apostles, whether or not there is any evidence of it being so.

Obviously I would only believe something because of what the early church believed if there was evidence of them actually believing it?

There was no Apostolic teaching being handed down on the matter at all.

Well I disagree with that. I am quite confident it was a common belief amongst the early church; I will go and find some sources in the next few days.

But never as clergy.

The definition of 'clergy' wasn't as clear cut as it is now.
I think...

Well, that's my point. If you have an open mind about something like that which has no scriptural basis and absolutely no example in the history of the early church, why apply a completely different standard when considering predestination vs. freewill?

The only reason I have an open mind about it is because there were churches who had female leaders. Had that not been the case, then of course I would accept that no women should be clergy.

Please don't think that Wikipedia is authoritative.

I don't see why everyone gets down on wikipedia, it's much better to link to on these sorts of forums because it's short and to the point, and it's only 5% less accurate than Encyclopedia Brittanica

That said, I have to ask you again...if you feel that that which was apparently always part of the early church is, ergo, the truth, how can you not take the whole package? Apostolic Succession was not, nor were the other items I presented to you, so how can we say that freewill stands apart from all of that?

I really am not following you here. Maybe you mis-wrote? I do not believe that every single letter from a church father is authorative. If that was the case, we would have a LOT of contradicting 'truths'! However, if the fathers were unanimous or nearly unanimous on a subject, then we can take that as being worth a great deal.

To be consistent, you'd have to reject Apostolic Succession, women pastors, confession, and a host of other doctrines that got hammered out in the present form only over centuries but were not there in the beginning. Yet when it comes to freewill....

Don't follow you again.

It is just as possible to be right on the basis of a proper understanding of scripture

Well, here I have to disagree with you. There are a million and one interpretations of scripture. Do you think that Christ wanted his church to be so fragmented in the way it is now? Just look at the front page of this forum! There are at least two dozen different 'faith groups' and 'communities', all with their own beliefs, some varying wildly from others. I am sure on my interpretations of some scripture just as others are sure on their (opposing) interpretations. I can't imagine that it was God's plan to fling us the Bible and just say, "Have fun!", and everyone just interpreting it as they wish. 1 Timothy 3:15 again - the church is the pillar of truth. Without some sort of personal infallible authority, I can't see how we're meant to know how to live our lives.

None of them WAS writing at the time of the writing of the NT books! All are of a later time and did not agree among themselves.

This isn't true. The 27 books of the New Testament are not the earliest letters/writings we have. The Egerton Gospel was written between 70-120AD. Didache clocks in at around 50-120AD. I'm sure there's more.
Although, of course, they weren't considered authorative by the early church. I read an excellent quote once which said that the canon of the Bible was not an "authorative list of books", but a "list of authorative books" - ie, whether the book was authorative or not had already been pretty much accepted by the church at large.

Anyway, I made my observation and that's probably all there is to say. We have to decide what it is that governs our doctrinal conclusions. I say that it's the Word of God. Others say something else, but for me, they don't present anything like a consistent and compelling case.

Incidentally, one has to accept an infallible church at least until 393AD to accept that the Bible is inspired.

 

[TimRout]

Sounds like you're contradicting what you said in the first paragraph.

Yes, predestination DOES mean that God chooses those whom he will bring to faith.

As a former Arminian turned Calvinist, allow me to comment in furtherance of your observation.

Biblically, there has never been any question that God chooses whom He will save. The question raised by most proponents of free will is the basis upon which God chooses. The synergist argues that God has chosen on the basis of His passive philosophical foreknowledge of man's libertarian decision to believe, while the monergist argues that God has chosen on the basis of His own good pleasure.

Therefore, it is meaningless for a proponent of free will to suggest that God does not choose or predestine His elect.

 

[arationalchristian]

As a former Arminian turned Calvinist, allow me to comment in furtherance of your observation.

Biblically, there has never been any question that God chooses whom He will save. The question raised by most proponents of free will is the basis upon which God chooses. The synergist argues that God has chosen on the basis of His passive philosophical foreknowledge of man's libertarian decision to believe, while the monergist argues that God has chosen on the basis of His own good pleasure.

Therefore, it is meaningless for a proponent of free will to suggest that God does not choose or predestine His elect.

The free-will-ist will assert that being omniscient does not preclude free will.

 

[TimRout]

The free-will-ist will assert that being omniscient does not preclude free will.

Exactly! As an Arminian, I argued that God foreknew (passively) who would freely believe on Christ, and elected them on that basis. Of course, this argument is falacious.

 

[Tzaousios]

I'll give you that not all Christians strictly believed in free will - I believe St Augustus had some sort of opinion on election - but as far as I'm aware, no Christian believed in the sort of predestination which Calvinists adhere to. Within the first few centuries, I do not know of any reference to predestination; certainly not any reference without also incorporating free will.

Indeed, Augustine had a very strong position on election and predestination. In fact, he was the first church father in the east or west to emphasize these doctrines and the importance of Paul's epistle to the Romans for their exegesis.

Of course, he still believed in a severely limited "free will," but his exegesis of the doctrines of election and predestination were highly influential in the later attempts of Luther and Calvin. Check out his letter to the bishop Simplicanus, De diversis quaestionibus VII ad Simplicianum, and any of his works after the year 395.

 

[Vince53]

"Yes, predestination DOES mean that God chooses those whom he will bring to faith."

No, it does not, and there is no such teaching in Scripture. Those who accept Christ are predestined to be conformed to the image of God's Son, and they are predestined to be adopted as sons. There is no other type of predestination in the Bible.

Yes, indeed, God does choose whom He will save. He chooses (elects) to save everyone who accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior. But nowhere in the Bible does God choose who will accept Jesus.

 

[TimRout]

"Yes, predestination DOES mean that God chooses those whom he will bring to faith."

No, it does not, and there is no such teaching in Scripture. Those who accept Christ are predestined to be conformed to the image of God's Son, and they are predestined to be adopted as sons. There is no other type of predestination in the Bible.

Yes, indeed, God does choose whom He will save. He chooses (elects) to save everyone who accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior. But nowhere in the Bible does God choose who will accept Jesus.

Again Vince, your bold assertions aside, there is no biblical basis for your position.

Romans 8:29-30 allows no conclusion other than this: God has sovereignly established a relationship with His elect through His active, decreetive foreknowing. Those whom He foreknew He predestined, called, justified and glorified. Salvation is of the Lord, first to last. Man contributes nothing whatsoever. Even faith is a gift of God [2 Ptr. 1:1].

 

[JSGuitarist]

I'd have to say Calvinist right now.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Again Vince, your bold assertions aside, there is no biblical basis for your position.

Romans 8:29-30 allows no conclusion other than this: God has sovereignly established a relationship with His elect through His active, decreetive foreknowing. Those whom He foreknew He predestined, called, justified and glorified. Salvation is of the Lord, first to last. Man contributes nothing whatsoever. Even faith is a gift of God [2 Ptr. 1:1].

My dear readers,

Romans 8:29-30 allows for many other conclusions, some of which are much more Biblically and historically sound, and these other conclusions are found in the hundreds of commentaries have been published on the Epistle to the Romans (I have about 230 of them in my home library), as well as scores of volumes of other studies on the Epistle, and it is a good idea to become familiar with that Epistle before making statements about it which are factually incorrect. Indeed, Paul, the writer of that Epistle, most certainly did not view the future glorification of his readers as having been predetermined, nor did he view his own future glorification as having been predetermined,

1 Cor. 9:23. I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.
24. Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.
25. Everyone who competes in the games exercises self- control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
26. Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air;
27. but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.

Indeed, throughout the New Testament, we find hundreds of admonitions and warning addressed to Christians to spur them on toward the final goal lest they fall short of ultimate salvation. Throughout the Old Testament, we find hundreds of thousands of individuals on their way to the promised land, only to perish in the wilderness due to their backsliding; and, according to Paul, these things happened to them as an example to us!

1 Cor. 10:1. For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea;
2. and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3. and all ate the same spiritual food;
4. and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.
5. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness.
6. Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they also craved.
7. Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, “THE PEOPLE SAT DOWN TO EAT AND DRINK, AND STOOD UP TO PLAY.”
8. Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day.
9. Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents.
10. Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer.
11. Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.
12. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.

If those persons who enjoy picking TULIPs would spend some time perusing the literature of the first three centuries of the Church learning how these Christians closest to Christ and the New Testament writers understood the New Testament, they would not find any TULIPs to pick because these early Christians did not find any TULIPs in the Bible. The TULIPs that the Reformers believed that they found in the Bible were in reality flowers of an entirely different kind.

(All quotations from the Scriptures are from the NASB, 1995)

 

[Vince53]

The Bible teaches that God does indeed call all men to Him, but they have the ability to resist:

Proverbs 1:24 Because I have called and you refused, I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded,

Isaiah 65:2 I have stretched out My hands all day long to a rebellious people,

Isaiah 66:4 Because, when I called, no one answered,

 

[PrincetonGuy]

There certainly is an argument to be made from consensus. Do I take it correctly then that you also accept (for the same reason you outlined above) millennialism, that women cannot be in the ordained ministry, that bishops who derive their powers from having been given them by previous bishops are the only valid rulers of congregations, and/or that once one is baptised and then relapses there is no forgiveness possible?

It could be argued that since those were once the standard in the Christian churches, they must be right always. (BTW, it is not true that freewill was the only accepted POV for the first 1500 years.)

My Dear Readers,

Let us not confuse a consensus of opinion or the prevailing opinion with the unanimous teaching of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers and the total absence of a conflicting doctrine. The majority of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers may conceivably have been incorrect regarding some interpretations of the Scriptures, but when a doctrine is totally absent from the writings of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers and is abundantly refuted by them, there can be no reasonable doubt but that the doctrine is a spurious, erroneous doctrine. Such is the case with all of the Five Points of Calvinism.

Let us always keep in mind that the Protestant Reformation was a reaction to abuses in the Roman Catholic Church and that at the time of the Protestant Reformation, students of the Bible had very few resources to aid them—not so much as a copy of Strong’s concordance or Nave’s Topical Bible or a reliable Greek grammar. Indeed, they had far fewer resources to aid them than are available to boys and girls living in rural parts of the English speaking world but having access to the internet. Had the Protestant Reformation occurred in this century, it is extremely unlikely that we would have the Five Points of Calvinism to worry about.

Thank you for your participation in this thread. May God richly bless you all.

 

[TimRout]

The Bible teaches that God does indeed call all men to Him, but they have the ability to resist:

Proverbs 1:24 Because I have called and you refused, I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded,

Isaiah 65:2 I have stretched out My hands all day long to a rebellious people,

Isaiah 66:4 Because, when I called, no one answered,

Calvinists are generally quick to point out the presuppositional nature of this argument, Vince. There is no question that people choose to rebel against God, and there is no question He punishes them for their rebellion. The question is: Could these rebellious people have done otherwise apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Originally Posted by Vince53
The Bible teaches that God does indeed call all men to Him, but they have the ability to resist:

Proverbs 1:24 Because I have called and you refused, I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded,

Isaiah 65:2 I have stretched out My hands all day long to a rebellious people,

Isaiah 66:4 Because, when I called, no one answered,
Calvinists are generally quick to point out the presuppositional nature of this argument, Vince. There is no question that people choose to rebel against God, and there is no question He punishes them for their rebellion. The question is: Could these rebellious people have done otherwise apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit?

It is the Calvinists who are presupposing in this case and presupposing in general. In this case, they are presupposing that the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit was not at work in the lives of these people even though these very Scriptures explicitly state that God Himself “called” them and that He stretched out His hands to them all day long! Indeed, Calvinists presuppose very many things that are not true and bend, twist, and manipulate the Scriptures to force them to appear to teach what they do not teach.

In all three of the passages that Vince53 quoted, the ONLY reason for supposing that the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit was not at work is that such a supposition refutes Calvin’s doctrine of irresistible grace. If one approaches these three Scriptures without any presuppositions, and examines them to see what they are actually teaching, it becomes expressly clear and obvious that they are teaching that the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit was at work but the people resisted His work as is all too often the case in the Scriptures and in the world today.

Luke 13:34. “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it!
35. “Behold, your house is left to you desolate; and I say to you, you will not see Me until the time comes when you say, ‘BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!’” (NASB, 1995)

 

[Tzaousios]

The majority of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers may conceivably have been incorrect regarding some interpretations of the Scriptures, but when a doctrine is totally absent from the writings of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers and is abundantly refuted by them, there can be no reasonable doubt but that the doctrine is a spurious, erroneous doctrine. Such is the case with all of the Five Points of Calvinism.

How are you so sure? This sure seems like an opinion and case of wishful thinking. You would be hard-pressed not to find any element of the five points of Calvinism in the ante-Nicene fathers. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion though.

Let us always keep in mind that the Protestant Reformation was a reaction to abuses in the Roman Catholic Church and that at the time of the Protestant Reformation, students of the Bible had very few resources to aid them—not so much as a copy of Strong’s concordance or Nave’s Topical Bible or a reliable Greek grammar.

Obviously, the Reformers did not have a copy of those reference works because they are modern. However, after the proliferation of the printing press, especially in large cities and the lower country of Germany, reference works and dictionaries began to be printed up and disseminated. If you knew about the work of Aldus Manutius and others you would understand this.

Had the Protestant Reformation occurred in this century, it is extremely unlikely that we would have the Five Points of Calvinism to worry about.

What in the world are you talking about? There is no way to prove this and even to suggest it is a grave historical anachronism. Please explain in more detail.

 

[Albion]

Let us not confuse a consensus of opinion or the prevailing opinion with the unanimous teaching of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers and the total absence of a conflicting doctrine.

And let us never be misled by this kind of self-fulfilling claim. There is nothing unanimous about the teachings of the Church Fathers and many changed their own minds as their careers moved along. Almost none of them were alive at the time of the Apostles, and almost all that is claimed to be true because "it was handed down from the Apostles" indeed was.

In short, this allegation that whatever always was, must, therefore, be true, is unproven...and worse, is unprovable. And from all that we know, it is false on its face since there is no evidence that most of these doctrines actually came from the Apostles, constituted the faith or practice of the first Christian churches, or was, in fact, the "unanimous" teaching of the Ante-Nicene or any other group of churches. It is nothing but a self-validating myth.