Arminian Vs. Calvinist

[Chesterton]

what does God have for those He didnt choose (if its not love)?

Misery. He created them as cannon fodder.

 

[Rhamiel]

LDG

Then at the moment of conversion, their eyes are opened, they are free to choose to believe in Christ, and God justifies them.

so there needs to be some cooperation with Grace?

 

[jckstraw72]

so then how is Calvinism different than Arminianism?

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

what does God have for those He didnt choose (if its not love)?

Calvinists do hold that God does love all humanity and blesses people: Matt 5:45 He [God] causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. Calvinists refer to this as common grace. Calvinists also hold to special grace, which is a blessing and special love to those who believe. LDG

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

so then how is Calvinism different than Arminianism?

Theologically, Arminians and Calvinists differ on the basis of God's choice - Arminians say it was based on God's love and knowledge of who would believe, while Calvinists say it was based on God's love. Also Calvinists hold to irresistible grace (special grace), while most Arminians believe grace can be resisted. In the past classic Arminians held to a governmental view of the atonement, but these days that is not necessarily the case. LDG

 

[Tzaousios]

John Calvin on the issue:

"Since the image of God had been destroyed in us by the fall, we may judge from its restoration what it originally had been. Paul says that we are transformed into the image of God by the gospel. And, according to him, spiritual regeneration is nothing else than the restoration of the same image. (Colossians 3:10, and Ephesians 4:23.)"

This does not seem to match up with what your colleague LamorakDesGalis said below about the image of God. I had originally described the Calvinist view as being that the image was utterly destroyed in the fall. LamorakDesGalis corrected me and said that that language was too harsh and proceeded to show that Calvin had formulated his position using language akin to that of the Arminians. See my comments below.

I haven't found any logical incoherences in reformed theology. Guess that's why I am reformed huh?

I welcome you to bring them up, but I doubt we will agree on our logic.

Please see my replies below to LamorakDesGalis on this topic. What I was referring to that the logic seemed uneven was the way in which Calvinist's deal with the relationship between God's sovereign purpose and his gift of the Imago Dei to both Adam and post-fall man. How would you explain this?

Genesis 1:27-31

27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. 31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.

Calvin believed individuals retained at least some portion of the image of God after the fall. I think "utterly" and "destroyed" are too strong to describe the Calvinist positions regarding the image of God. "Marred" or "impaired" would be more accurate.

But behind that is the key issue: What exactly is the image of God?

Different traditions have different answers. Even within traditions there are a lot of different views.

There is a wide range of various definitions, from physical resemblance to eternal soul or capacity (reasoning, etc).

Here is Calvin on the image of God, from the Institutes (I, 15, 4 - Beveridge):

It cannot be doubted that when Adam lost his first estate he became alienated from God. Wherefore, although we grant that the image of God was not utterly effaced and destroyed in him, it was, however, so corrupted, that any thing which remains is fearful deformity; and, therefore, our deliverance begins with that renovation which we obtain from Christ, who is, therefore, called the second Adam, because he restores us to true and substantial integrity.

I agree that there is a wide range of definitions and meanings. However, I think it is an important issue to which Calvinists have not given sufficient attention. What is the relationship between the Imago Dei and God's absolute sovereignty? How his God's sovereignty not compromised if man still retains the image after the fall, since God pronounced that it was good after he bestowed it upon him?

Not to mention that Calvin's admission that the image of God is damaged and tarnished instead of utterly destroyed is the same statement which Calvinists disparage "Arminians" for making. If the image of God brings with it rationality and the faculty of the will, and is not utterly destroyed by the fall, then it follows that man still has the ability to exercise it towards good or evil. Of course, it cannot do this independently of grace, but rather cooperates with it to choose good.

So, like the EO, Calvinism understands that the image is distorted or covered - is that correct ?

I don't understand the "utter depravity" idea, though.
To me, this suggests that the image is rendered inactive, or that we cannot in any way be "attracted" to God.

Thekla, please see my comments below on what my perception of Calvinism's concept of the Imago Dei is in reference to the explanations offered.

I share your bewilderment about this. For all intents and purposes, in Calvinism, the image of God is so damaged and covered over that it is rendered into a state that might as well be equal to that of non-existence or not having been created by God.

This notion just does not answer why we still retain that image even after the fall of Adam and what purpose it serves, other than to distinguish us by a mere shade of difference from animals and plants. Surely it means something more than that?

Here lets have some lessons in logic. Because God created a being and the being is controlled by God that doesn't imply that God is responsible for the beings actions.

God would be equally responsible in your understanding of God for not stopping the fall.

How do you reconcile this "logic" with the idea according to Calvinism that God foreordained the appearance (if not the creation) of sin and the fall of Adam? It sure seems dangerously close to a clever play of semantics.

Again its the same problem. God controls ones free will to do whatever he wants. You can't get out of the own mess you made.

Your own premise is that if God is the primary cause of someones actions therefore God is responsible. The only difference between this and calvinism is that you threw "free will" into the picture. Accept the logic of it already.

You and he both already know that neither of you are on the same page as to what the definition of "free will" is. Therefore, the "logic" of it is difficult for him to grasp according to the system from which he operates.

Augustine and Calvin both affirmed the existence of man's free will. However, they both defined it in the compatibilist sense, which is different than the classical definition of free will. The Roman Catholic Church rejected most of Augustine's doctrine of double predestination and definition of free will. It retains more of a classical sense of the concept.

Ultimately, how Augustine's and Calvin's notion of compatibilism does not really turn out to be incompatibilism, other than by a ploy of clever language, remains a mystery to me.

LOL Forces us nearer to Him? what do you mean by this? How much nearer to God can we get than Him through His Spirit living with in us and us being His temple. Would us that are His want to be anywhere but in His presence?
Do you not love the very presence of God?

I think he means God draws the elect to him by his irresistable grace. Since he does not agree with Calvinism, he has not used the same positive terminology.

Scripture teaches us that we love by the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. This is why scripture teaches us that those who do not love do not know God.. How can a sinful man love freely? Can you love God uncondtionally?

There is absolutely no room in the Calvinist system for the lost man to even have an inkling to cry out to God for mercy. In his unregenerate state he has no capacity for faith or repentance. He must wait, if in fact he is the elect, for God's prevenient grace to come upon him, this freeing his will to desire something spiritual.

Yes, both have that same basic sense.

However, EO (from what I understand) places a much heavier emphasis on the image of God within each person. Its a more "positive" view - what is retained - while the Calvinist view tends to focus on the "negative" aspects - what was distorted in the fall.

For all intents and purposes, lets be honest, the Imago Dei in the Calvinist system is so damaged that it retains nothing of the original value which God placed on it. The faculty of the will is in total enslavement to sin and cannot recognize any spiritual good, cannot desire it, and retains no capacity for faith or repentance. In fact, the will is utterly inslaved such that it only desires sin and drives man to hate God in all instances.

ive never heard a Calvinist put it that way before ... my Calvinist roommate from the summer definitely said there is absolutely no choice in the matter.

Well, to be truthful, in the Calvinist system there is no "choice" on the part of man. Grace is irresistable, and once it impacts the elect, their conversion is final and persists until the end. Now, in terms of man's will, after he is born again, his will is freed from the total dominance of the sinful nature such that he can choose to sin or not under grace. But man makes no choice in salvation.

The continental divide concerning predestination between Arminians and Calvinists is this:

. Arminians hold that God chose a person to be saved on the basis of God's love and the person's (future) choice.

. Calvinists hold that God chose a person to be saved on the basis of God's love.

This is obfuscating the definition for those who are unfamiliar with Calvinist soteriology and providing further incitement for those who are opposed to it. We should be precise in our definitions: "Calvinists hold that God chose a person to be saved based on his absolute, sovereign choice." (It is understood that God's love is for the elect).

what does God have for those He didnt choose (if its not love)?

I have seen Calvinists describe the predestination of the reprobate as a manifestation of God's love. But it is definitely a manifestation of his absolute sovereignty and perfect justice.

so there needs to be some cooperation with Grace?

As I understand it, there is no "cooperation" with grace in the Calvinist system. This would infringe upon God's absolute sovereignty. Calvinists would say that synergistic grace is a component of Arminian or Semi-Pelagian soteriology.

 

[Tzaousios]

Calvinists do hold that God does love all humanity and blesses people: Matt 5:45 He [God] causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. Calvinists refer to this as common grace. Calvinists also hold to special grace, which is a blessing and special love to those who believe. LDG

I agree, however, this has to be defined with reference to the elect and the reprobate. The elect, by virtue of their divine selection and receiving of grace, are enabled to give praise to God for natural goods such as sun and rain. The reprobate, however, by the necessity of their total enslavement to the fallen nature, can only attribute it to nature or even worse curse God for it. They can identify no spiritual good in them whatsoever.

 

[jckstraw72]

Also Calvinists hold to irresistible grace (special grace), while most Arminians believe grace can be resisted.

you said before that they had a choice to receive Christ or not, now youre saying the grace is irresistible?

 

[Rhamiel]

I agree, however, this has to be defined with reference to the elect and the reprobate. The elect, by virtue of their divine selection and receiving of grace, are enabled to give praise to God for natural goods such as sun and rain. The reprobate, however, by the necessity of their total enslavement to the fallen nature, can only attribute it to nature or even worse curse God for it. They can identify no spiritual good in them whatsoever.

well that does not make sense, so you are telling me, that a peron who will go to hell has never saw a sunrise and said "wow, that sunrise is a masterful creation of the Lord"
I am sure even Hitler said something like that once or twice!

 

[Rhamiel]

yet another reminder, the Roman Catholic Church is not Arminian

 

[Tzaousios]

well that does not make sense, so you are telling me, that a peron who will go to hell has never saw a sunrise and said "wow, that sunrise is a masterful creation of the Lord"

This is my understanding of the Calvinist position when taken to its "logical" conclusion. Perhaps they might correct me on this, however.

Let me point out that I am not a Calvinist in the strict definitional sense. That pretty much makes me not a Calvinist, I assume. If I was one, my icon would reflect it. Hopefully this clears up any confusion as from where my theological assumptions come.

My interpretation of it would be that the unregenerate person, if they are not an outright atheist, does not have the ability to give meaningful praise to the Lord from a heart changed by grace. We must recognize that even Satan and the demons, who were created by God as well and were originally good, believe in God and acknowledge the existence of Jesus Christ (James 2:18-20). This does not equate to any kind of spiritual praise and definitely not faith unto salvation.

 

[Rhamiel]

This is my understanding of the Calvinist position when taken to its "logical" conclusion. Perhaps they might correct me on this, however.

Let me point out that I am not a Calvinist in the strict definitional sense. That pretty much makes me not a Calvinist, I assume. If I was one, my icon would reflect it. Hopefully this clears up any confusion as from where my theological assumptions come.

My interpretation of it would be that the unregenerate person, if they are not an outright atheist, does not have the ability to give meaningful praise to the Lord from a heart changed by grace. We must recognize that even Satan and the demons, who were created by God as well and were originally good, believe in God and acknowledge the existence of Jesus Christ (James 2:18-20). This does not equate to any kind of spiritual praise and definitely not faith unto salvation.

ok, just checking

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

LDG so there needs to be some cooperation with Grace?

It depends on what you mean by cooperation, and in what area of salvation. The Westminster Confession quote I provided said that God works through a person's will without overriding them. God does not justify anyone who is unwilling. Also the call or effectual call is the process by which God brings a person to the point of conversion. Perhaps that could be called cooperation, because God is working through the person's choices. However Calvinists engaged in polemics concerning justification would react strongly against a suggestion of cooperation.

Regarding justification, an Arminian (or another non-Calvinist position) would say yes, there is cooperation, that God has done His part and now we need to do our part - and after we do our part then we will be saved.

A Calvinist would say no, that we are "dead in sins" and that God needs to "make us alive." Once the person is "alive" then that is the moment they have a choice to choose good, and they choose God (Calvinists follow Augustine's lead in this).

Now after a person is redeemed, in the realm of sanctification both Calvinist and non-Calvinist say the redeemed has the ability to choose between good and evil. They are responsible for the choices that they make, they are free to worship and love God, etc. So in terms of sanctification, Calvinists would say there is "cooperation with grace."


LDG

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

I agree, however, this has to be defined with reference to the elect and the reprobate. The elect, by virtue of their divine selection and receiving of grace, are enabled to give praise to God for natural goods such as sun and rain. The reprobate, however, by the necessity of their total enslavement to the fallen nature, can only attribute it to nature or even worse curse God for it. They can identify no spiritual good in them whatsoever.

A HyperCalvinist would agree with your paragraph, but not a Calvinist. Only Supralapsarians distinguish between two "classes" of humanity of the elect and the reprobate, and only HyperCalvinists (who are always supras) draw hard conclusions based on their ordering of the eternal decrees. And only HyperCalvinists reject the idea of common grace.

In John 17 Jesus said the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin. That is a general work, and the Holy Spirit also indwells those who believe. Those whom the Holy Spirit convicts of sin include people who repent of their sins, but not come to the point where they are saved. See Ahab for example. God was pleased with Ahab's repentance so much that He changed the timing of the judgment. However the Bible is clear that Ahab wasn't saved.

LDG

 

[Rhamiel]

A Calvinist would say no, that we are "dead in sins" and that God needs to "make us alive." Once the person is "alive" then that is the moment they have a choice to choose good, and they choose God (Calvinists follow Augustine's lead in this).

well I think that is kind of a missrepresentation of the other views, no one says that we choose good on our own, being able to choose God is itself a gift of His grace, I know the Catholic Church teaches this and I think Arminianism teachers this as well

 

[MamaZ]

I think the main difference is that we believe it is God who chooses who He will and that it is not men who chooses God first. It is not by doing good deeds that one is saved by but the power of the cross.

 

[jckstraw72]

but does God force us to choose the Cross, or is that up to us? Christ said that many times He would have taken the Jews under His wing but they were unwilling, and in Acts either Peter or Paul tells the Jews that they resist the Spirit just as their fathers did.

 

[Rhamiel]

I think the main difference is that we believe it is God who chooses who He will and that it is not men who chooses God first. It is not by doing good deeds that one is saved by but the power of the cross.

no one says you are saved by God deeds,
and I do not think anyone says that a man can come to God on his own,

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

but does God force us to choose the Cross, or is that up to us? Christ said that many times He would have taken the Jews under His wing but they were unwilling, and in Acts either Peter or Paul tells the Jews that they resist the Spirit just as their fathers did.

Lutherans reject the Arminianism of Catholicism and some Protestants, as well as the TULIPism (good word I invented, lol) of a few Protestants. Both go too far and are too full of fallible, human "ergo's."

Those of us who believe are people whom God embraced as His own even before we were born, He gave to us the gift of faith and lead us to faith. SOLI DEO GLORIA! The details and "how" of all of that - Scripture just doesn't say, so we don't. And it's pure Gospel - meant to comfort and assure us. I remember my parents, years ago, telling me how much they loved me - even before I was born. How they prayed for me constantly, prepared my nursery, re-arranged their lives for me - and they didn't know that I was going to be this amazingly wonderful, smart, handsome guy (didn't matter - their love was because they are loving, not because I am worthy). I charished knowing that and hearing all that. Gospel. Now, where I think people go astray is turning this Gospel upside down and inside out, making Law out of it - "God must hate you and made you just so He could watch you fry in hell!" Or "God loves you because you first loved Him and you earned everything you ever got." Scripture says no such thing. But I also disagree with those who insist, "we basically are our own Savior by OUR works or decisions or whatever, it's purely MY stuff." The Bible nowhere says that, either.

This I can say: God loves me. ALWAYS has, ALWAYS will. He chose me and gave to me the gift of faith and salvation. SOLI DEO GLORIA. Why the guy next door doesn't believe - I don't know, but it does not mean that God loves him less or Christ didn't die for him. There's a dynamic here that is mystery and best left so. Embrace the Gospel. Don't twist it inside out and upside down with a lot of fallible, limited, human "logic." I find it unfortunate that some take the Gospel meant to comfort and direct us to God and turn it into a "terror of the soul" (as Luther called it) and turns all the glory to self.


I have a similar position on the related OSAS "debate" between Catholics and Calvinists. BOTH, IMHO, are ignoring "the other side" and applying too much fallible human "logic." The Gospel is that God loves us - and ALWAYS will; He is true to His promises and will never let us go. The Law is that we can be untrue, unfaithful, and we can let God go and "fall away." Whether such EVENTUALLY returns to God is something we can't say because God doesn't. In all likihood, the same "mystery" in the dynamic of how we came to faith is at work here, too. The HOLY SPIRIT brings us and keeps us in the faith. If we believe, thank God. Anything else is beyond Scripture.





.

 

[VictoryProcured]

This has been a doctrine that I have always had difficulty with....Limited or Unlimited Atonement. Be sure to read all 4 parts before responding so you can incorporate all that I have said in your response. Thank you

The question that must be asked is "For whom did Christ die?" The Limited Atonement advocate would advance the notion that it is only the elect, while the Unlimited Atonement proponent would posit that it is for all mankind. Being a staunch adherent to Unlimited Atonement I must declare that Christ died for all mankind, not just the elect, but for everyone. It is my studied and settled conviction that the atonement of Christ was and is "sufficient for all" but "effectual to the elect." That is to say, He (Christ) died for the sins of the whole world, thus being sufficient for all, but is only beneficial for the elect, thus being efficient for the elect.

First let me survey the concept of "Limited Atonement" with you and then I shall polemically defend the doctrine of "Unlimited Atonement."

Concerning the doctrine of "Limited Atonement" the Westminster Confession states:

VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
[FONT=Times New
 Roman][/FONT]
VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praised of His glorious justice (Westminster Confession III.VI-VII).

Louis Berkhof says: "The Reformed position is that Christ died for the purpose of actually and certainly saving the elect, and the elect only. This is equivalent to saying that He died for the purpose of saving only those to whom He actually applies the benefits of His redemptive work." He further states, "it should be noted that the doctrine that Christ died for the purpose of saving all men, logically leads to absolute universalism, that is, to the doctrine that all men are actually saved."

This logic is derived from his general principle, "the designs of God are always and surely efficacious and cannot be frustrated by the actions of men."

John Murray advances the same notion when he stated, "Whether the expression of limited atonement is good or not, we must reckon with the fact that unless we believe in the final restoration of all men we cannot have an unlimited atonement. If we universalize the extent we limit the efficacy. If some of those for whom atonement was made and redemption wrought perish eternally, then the atonement is not itself efficacious?"

3. Unlimited Atonement or General Atonement
Christ's redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone. Although Christ died for all men and for every man, only those who believe on Him are saved. His death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condition that they believe, but it did not actually put away anyone's sins. Christ's redemption becomes effective only if man chooses to accept it.
3. Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption
Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was a substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ's redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation, including faith which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, therefore guaranteeing their salvation.

​

According to the Particular Redemptionist, the Bible speaks of a limited extent of the atonement.

To quote one of the most influential advocates of Calvinism Dr. Louis Berkhof, “The Bible says Christ died for a specific group of people - "the church," "His people," "His sheep."

"Scripture repeatedly qualifies those for whom Christ laid down His life in such a way as to point to a very definite limitation. Those for whom He suffered and died are variously called 'His sheep,' John 10:11, 15, 'His Church,' Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25-27, 'His people,' Matt. 1:21, and 'the elect,' Rom. 8:32-35."

It is argued that the nature of ransom is such that, when paid and accepted, it automatically frees those for whom it is intended. No further obligation can be charged against them. Now, if the death of Christ was a ransom for all alike, not just for the elect, then it must be the case that all are set free by the work of the Holy Spirit.

Some advocates of limited atonement say that Christ is defeated if He died for all men and all men aren't saved and that if Christ died for all people, as unlimited atonement advocates say, then God would be unfair in sending people to hell for their own sins.

Since Christ didn't pray for everyone in His High Priestly prayer in John 17, but only for His own, Christ must not have died for everyone.
It is argued that since the intercession is limited in extent, the atonement must be too.

Though terms like "all," "world," and "whosoever" are used in Scripture in reference to those for whom Christ died (e.g., John 3:16), the terms are to be understood in terms of the elect. In other words:

"All" refers to "all of the elect" or "all classes of men (Jew and Gentile)."
Louis Berkhof says "the word 'all' sometimes has a restricted meaning in Scripture, denoting all of a particular class, 1 Cor. 15:22; Eph. 1:23, or all kinds of classes, Tit.. 2:11."

What does the Bible mean when it says Christ is the "Savior of all men"? Charles Hodge answers: "What is meant is that He is our Savior, the Savior of men rather than of angels, not of Jews exclusively nor of the Gentiles only, not of the rich or of the poor alone, not of the righteous only, but also of publicans and sinners...."
"World" refers to "world of the elect" or to people without distinction (Jews and Gentiles).

Louis Berkhof says the unlimited atonement position is based "on the unwarranted assumption that the word 'world'...means 'all the individuals that constitute the human race.'....When it is used of men, [the word] does not always include all men, John 7:4; 12:19; 14:22; 18:20; Rom. 11:12, 15."

Berkhof also says: "There are passages which teach that Christ died for the world....In the passages referred to it may simply serve to indicate that Christ died, not merely for the Jews, but for people of all the nations of the world."
In keeping with the above, the word "whosoever" is interpreted to mean "whosoever of the elect."

Such universal terms simply show that Jesus died for all men without distinction (that is, all kinds of people, and people from among both the Jews and Gentiles), not that Jesus died for all men without exception (i.e., every lost sinner).

H. Wayne House an advocate of Particular Redemption says, “In addition to the outward general call to salvation, which is made to everyone who hears the Gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The external call (which is made to all without distinction) can be, and often is, rejected; whereas the internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By means of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ.”

Thus, this is the theological framework that is ushered forth from the camp of the limited atonement advocate. Now, let me turn to unlimited atonement and delineate why I believe it is the Scriptural view that best holds the doctrinal water of grace.