Calvinism vs Arminian is a worldview debate

[twin1954]

Royal priest in Post #15:

Actually, that sort of prayer does not reflect a Calvinist worldview at all.

A Calvinist does not know whom God has fore-chosen for salvation. Therefore, a Calvinist praying such a prayer could well be praying against God's will, and probably is.

I wonder what God might think of that?

The Arminian prays in order to twist God's arm and get Him to do something that He may not have done unles they twist His arm.

The Calvinist prays simply resting in the promises of God. We seek for Him to call out His elect and do what He promised that He would do. The Calvinist doesn't try to twist God's arm they pray as did David in 2Sam. 7:18-29

 

[twin1954]

“Assign to your opposition a label that somehow diminishes their credibility. Then if possible, use that label to lump them in with people or organisations that have negative connotations associated with them.”

It seems that you are a master at this tactic. All one need do is read your posts and they will see the truth of it.

 

[twin1954]

Twin1954 in Post #22:

A clever, significant-sounding, superficial proposition.

I doubt anyone but a Calvinist would give it any credence.

Oh. Of course not. The “Arminians”, being the only other perspective that exists according to this forum, know that is not so, at least not in their eyes.


But could it be that someone, reading the Scriptures afresh, has found a third perspective after all – one that renders this whole Calvinist-Arminian debate in its current form meaningless?

If so, what could it be?

Whether anyone gives it credence or thinks it isn't so doesn't change the truth of it though now does it? For one who claims preciseness in your thinking you know that it is true and yet you ignore it or try to disparage it as a clever but superficial proposition. Shame on you for doing exactly the very thing you pride yourself in not doing. You pride yourself in your preciseness yet ignore a truth in order to keep up your charade.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

But could it be that someone, reading the Scriptures afresh, has found a third perspective after all – one that renders this whole Calvinist-Arminian debate in its current form meaningless?

If so, what could it be?

There is an infinite number of ways to be wrong. Start a contest and throw in some prize money and you'll get more third perspectives than you can shake a pitchfork at.

 

[OzSpen]

Mikedsjr in Post #20:

mikdsjr in using the term “Romantic period” seems to be referring to the c1800's. Yet in Post #1 mikedsjr placed “Arminians” into the Romanticist camp, even though they appear to have been the original Baptists in England, around the 1600's.

“Assign to your opposition a label that somehow diminishes their credibility. Then if possible, use that label to lump them in with people or organisations that have negative connotations associated with them.”

Clever. Very clever.

It tricks most people.

But only as long as nobody points out to them how they are being dishonestly manipulated.

Pedrito,

Jacob (James) Arminius was before the Baptists in England. He lived, AD 1560-1609, and was ordained with the Dutch Reformed Church in The Netherlands. To his dying day he ws Dutch Reformed. His ministry was part of the Reformation in Europe.

Arminius studied under Calvin's son-in-law and successor, Beza, in Geneva.

Here's a link to a brief article on 'Baptist beginnings'.

Oz

 

[mikedsjr]

Pedrito, I assume your stance is Arminianism has never changed and any hermeneutical variance is not Arminianism. I disagree.

 

[OzSpen]

Pedrito, I assume your stance is Arminianism has never changed and any hermeneutical variance is not Arminianism. I disagree.

Could you please clarify what you mean by that statement? I don't understand the language of how you put it.

 

[mikedsjr]

Based on listening to people who claim Arminianism is their belief over Calvinism, Arminianism is really a dumping pool for "I'm not Calvinist" more than "I'm Arminian based on the teaching of Arminius or the Remonstrants". So there must be variance.

 

[OzSpen]

Based on listening to people who claim Arminianism is their belief over Calvinism, Arminianism is really a dumping pool for "I'm not Calvinist" more than "I'm Arminian based on the teaching of Arminius or the Remonstrants". So there must be variance.

Mike,

That is not a good way to determine the theology of Arminianism. In fact, you have mentioned some things here that are myths about Arminianism. These myths are exposed in Roger E Olson 2006. Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (InterVarsity Press).

Roger Olson teaches at a Southern Baptist Seminary - George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University, Waco, TX.

Listening to people who claim Arminianism as their belief is about as accurate as listening to people who claim Calvinism as their belief. The best way to determine Arminian beliefs is by reading the Works of James Arminius. I find the best way to determine Calvinist beliefs is to read John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Of course, there are other theologians after the founders who are helpful in understanding their beliefs.

However, the principle is the same: If I want to know the working mechanisms of my Toyota Camry I go to the source. The same applies with Arminius and Calvin. However, both Arminius and Calvin can be heavy going in reading and most people in the pew, whom I've met, stay away from these original writers.

Roger Olson has written an interesting and provocative article, 'What's wrong with Calvinism?' (Patheos, March 22, 2013).

Oz

 

[Bluelion]

Mike,

That is not a good way to determine the theology of Arminianism. In fact, you have mentioned some things here that are myths about Arminianism. These myths are exposed in Roger E Olson 2006. Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (InterVarsity Press).

Roger Olson teaches at a Southern Baptist Seminary - George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University, Waco, TX.

Listening to people who claim Arminianism as their belief is about as accurate as listening to people who claim Calvinism as their belief. The best way to determine Arminian beliefs is by reading the Works of James Arminius. I find the best way to determine Calvinist beliefs is to read John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Of course, there are other theologians after the founders who are helpful in understanding their beliefs.

However, the principle is the same: If I want to know the working mechanisms of my Toyota Camry I go to the source. The same applies with Arminius and Calvin. However, both Arminius and Calvin can be heavy going in reading and most people in the pew, whom I've met, stay away from these original writers.

Roger Olson has written an interesting and provocative article, 'What's wrong with Calvinism?' (Patheos, March 22, 2013).

Oz

The Calvinist on here told me i could learn more about it on the internet then by studying John Calvin lol. I mean what do you say to that?

 

[mikedsjr]

Oz, I agree my use of Arminianism isn't classical. To use your analogy a bit different, my use of Arminianism is to see classical Arminianism as the 1982 Camry and each yearly version is a variant. A Camry today can not be worked on the same way the 1982 Camry was, nor does it look anything close to the original. Cars has evolved. So has the way Christianity seems to work

 

[mikedsjr]

Oz, I would agree Calvinist do tend to portray Arminianism a bit poorly. My position in this thread worldviews have changed the direction of the original intent.

 

[Bluelion]

Oz, I agree my use of Arminianism isn't classical. To use your analogy a bit different, my use of Arminianism is to see classical Arminianism as the 1982 Camry and each yearly version is a variant. A Camry today can not be worked on the same way the 1982 Camry was, nor does it look anything close to the original. Cars has evolved. So has the way Christianity seems to work

wow did you just say that? God is unchanging you think His word is to? God's word or ideas should not be called evolving, that is just wrong. It could not possibly evolve more than Jesus coming down from heaven and explaining the OT and His word.

 

[twin1954]

Mike,

That is not a good way to determine the theology of Arminianism. In fact, you have mentioned some things here that are myths about Arminianism. These myths are exposed in Roger E Olson 2006. Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (InterVarsity Press).

Roger Olson teaches at a Southern Baptist Seminary - George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University, Waco, TX.

Listening to people who claim Arminianism as their belief is about as accurate as listening to people who claim Calvinism as their belief. The best way to determine Arminian beliefs is by reading the Works of James Arminius. I find the best way to determine Calvinist beliefs is to read John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Of course, there are other theologians after the founders who are helpful in understanding their beliefs.

However, the principle is the same: If I want to know the working mechanisms of my Toyota Camry I go to the source. The same applies with Arminius and Calvin. However, both Arminius and Calvin can be heavy going in reading and most people in the pew, whom I've met, stay away from these original writers.

Roger Olson has written an interesting and provocative article, 'What's wrong with Calvinism?' (Patheos, March 22, 2013).

Oz

I have read both Arminius and Calvin and know what each taught. But your idea that you must go to the originals theologians is thinking with blinders on. Most people today are not Classical Arminians any more than they are classical Calvinists. Wesley had more to do with modern Arminian thinking than did Arminius.

You are aware that it isn't a difference between theologians but a difference in Biblical interpretation. Free will Arminian thinking is the default one of all natural men. It fits easily within man's religious nature and a difference in how God is understood. To deny that both Calvinism and Arminianism cover a large spectrum of views is willful blindness and deceit. It is also intellectually dishonest to deny these facts.

There are really only two world views in religion: man controls his own destiny or God controls man's destiny. Every theological view is based in one of those concepts.

 

[OzSpen]

Oz, I agree my use of Arminianism isn't classical. To use your analogy a bit different, my use of Arminianism is to see classical Arminianism as the 1982 Camry and each yearly version is a variant. A Camry today can not be worked on the same way the 1982 Camry was, nor does it look anything close to the original. Cars has evolved. So has the way Christianity seems to work

Mike,

Christianity is not changing if we go by the book. It's the hermeneutics that are changing. Christianity has not evolved, but those who apply it have made it into something that looks quite dissimilar to the Scriptures - in my understanding.

An examination of the impact of seeker-sensitive services and the dumbing down of theology has demonstrated that.

Classical or Reformed Arminianism is that of the original, Jacob (James) Arminius, and it is still practised. See 'A Reformed Arminian View' by Stephen Ashby - which is parallel to a 2016 Camry.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

The Calvinist on here told me i could learn more about it on the internet then by studying John Calvin lol. I mean what do you say to that?

He or she is out of date. It's a bit like my son who is an MDiv graduate of a Baptist theological college. He was told to take no notice of anyone who wrote more than 10 years ago. I just about had a theological heart attack when he told me that.

If you want a confused view of Calvinism or Arminianism, read the waffling about it on the Internet. If you want the real thing, go to John Calvin and Jacobus (James) Arminius.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I have read both Arminius and Calvin and know what each taught. But your idea that you must go to the originals theologians is thinking with blinders on. Most people today are not Classical Arminians any more than they are classical Calvinists. Wesley had more to do with modern Arminian thinking than did Arminius.

You are aware that it isn't a difference between theologians but a difference in Biblical interpretation. Free will Arminian thinking is the default one of all natural men. It fits easily within man's religious nature and a difference in how God is understood. To deny that both Calvinism and Arminianism cover a large spectrum of views is willful blindness and deceit. It is also intellectually dishonest to deny these facts.

There are really only two world views in religion: man controls his own destiny or God controls man's destiny. Every theological view is based in one of those concepts.

You have built a couple straw men here.

1. Of course there are varieties of Arminians and many are not Classical or Reformed Arminians. However,
2. It is a myth to want to associate Arminianism with 'man controls his own destiny', which you seem to be implying.
3. Roger Olson's Arminian Theology (IVP 2006) has demonstrated that your view of Arminianism as 'default one of all natural men' is a false view. It is mythological.
4. I am not into willful blindness and deceit.

Oz

 

[mikedsjr]

Mike,

Christianity is not changing if we go by the book. It's the hermeneutics that are changing. Christianity has not evolved, but those who apply it have made it into something that looks quite dissimilar to the Scriptures - in my understanding.

An examination of the impact of seeker-sensitive services and the dumbing down of theology has demonstrated that.

Classical or Reformed Arminianism is that of the original, Jacob (James) Arminius, and it is still practised. See 'A Reformed Arminian View' by Stephen Ashby - which is parallel to a 2016 Camry.

Oz

I think you said what I was trying to say. I guess what I was saying, in a sense, is Arminianism is a bit easier to use to dumb down. Unless we want to say there is more than two views. Most people don't add Weslyanism into the bunch, though I would agree, it's really the easiest of the 3 to dumb down. But I don't think it came randomly. I do see how the worldviews have shaped Christianity. And yes, I do mean the hermeneutics have changed, but most people in churches don't view Christianity in hermeneutics.

 

[mikedsjr]

wow did you just say that? God is unchanging you think His word is to? God's word or ideas should not be called evolving, that is just wrong. It could not possibly evolve more than Jesus coming down from heaven and explaining the OT and His word.

To put it like Oz stated, and is more to the scholarly way to put it, hermeneutics has changed. In the manner of this thread, Christianity has changed. The worldviews of the day have impacted Christianity. There is always a bit of truth people are responding to with their worldview, but within those changes they make within their worldviews, they are still altering Christianity wrongly.

For instance, postmodernism has shaped Christianity. One of the plights postmodernism Christians see is hypocrisy and injustice and hate within Christianity. The result is the growth of the charismatic milieu into all of Christianity to fuse together Christianity as one. But in this there is a false theology of charismatic hermeneutics infecting theology. Gone is sound doctrine of the gospel and what enters is mysticism they claim is the holy spirits work, but it's a lie. The Holy Spirit does not distort context of Scripture for a shot of hope, wealth and health. So a legitimate concern is used for a different bad theology.

 

[twin1954]

You have built a couple straw men here.

No straw men in my argument. I will show you why.

1. Of course there are varieties of Arminians and many are not Classical or Reformed Arminians. However,

Then why make the point that if you want to know what Arminians or Calvinists believe you have to go back to the theologians for which they are named? That is just nonsense. Not only was Wesley instrumental in Arminianism as a theology but so were men like the heretic Charles Finney, Moody, Billy Sunday and others have shaped the theology and the hermenutic behind it. So if you really want to define what Arminianism is you must also read the works of these men.

2. It is a myth to want to associate Arminianism with 'man controls his own destiny', which you seem to be implying.

Now that is a real argument. It must be a myth because you say it is? How logical of you. You know it isn't a myth but the actual truth when reduced down to its basic foundation. Here is the syllogism:
Man has free will.
Man must choose to believe in Christ.
Man's faith is what brings salvation.
God cannot save unless man first believes.
God wants to save all men but cannot because all men will not believe.
Therefore if these things are true then man controls his own destiny.

No myth just a simple logical conclusion.

3. Roger Olson's Arminian Theology (IVP 2006) has demonstrated that your view of Arminianism as 'default one of all natural men' is a false view. It is mythological.

I am not arguing with an author of a book I am debating with you. I give you the courtesy of expressing my own thoughts in my own words and I expect the same courtesy. You think that your appeal to another source sounds like you are appealing to an expert but you have not actually shown him to be such. Olsen's theology is simply one man's opinion.

Instead of just making a claim though I will give you the simple argument that my statement is true.
It is a well known truth that all mankind thinks he has free will naturally. All I need do to prove that is to take you to any street and ask the question. Moreover the Bible clearly tells us that man thinks that he can get around God.
If you require the passages then I will gladly give them to you but I suspect that you already know them.
The fact that the concept of free will came early after the Fall is Cain, the eldest son of Adam, bringing the works of his hands and expecting God to accept it.
Also the truth that free will is the default position of all natural men is clearly seen in the various religions throughout the world. Every false religion is founded in the concept of man choosing his own destiny. A study of world religions easily proves that fact.
These being the case it is no myth nor a straw man to make the claim that free will is the default position of mankind.

4. I am not into willful blindness and deceit.
Oz

Your argument seems to prove otherwise. Given your obvious intellect and education you should know better but I suppose that you might be deceived yourself.

The simple fact is that there are only two world views and they are as I described them. Hermeneutics and theology are a result of the basic world views. When one begins with the foundation that man must have free will and choose his own destiny his hermeneutics and theology will follow being built on that foundation.