Calvinism VS. Arminianism: A Futile Argument

[jomarc]

The never-ending discussion that is going on between the Arminian and Calvinist camps of the SBC is futile.

Can't we just all agree that God uses men to spread his word. And that no one can be saved unless the Holy Spirit is involved.

Regardless of where you stand in the Arminian/Calvinist aspect of theology, we are ALL called to teach others about Christ and to make disciples. And whether you want to believe it or not, YOU...a human...cannot save anyone. God and GOD ALONE determines who is and is not saved.

Let's just all follow the Bible and do what we are called to do. Let's leave the world's politicking to all of those folks out in Washington. It certainly doesn't belong in our churches.

 

[Kormagh]

In my experience, the biggest hurdle in this debate is man's free will. The Arminians are so determined to keep mans choice as the determining factor in salvation. If they would just understand that the Calvinists agree that man has to choose, but that they believe that mans choice is bound by his nature, and that God must change the heart so that man will be willing to choose him.
Secondly, that both sides agree that the gospel should be preached to all. The atonement is sufficient for all but Calvinists believe it is effective for the elect.
Thirdly, God elects. It's all over the Bible. He is loving AND just. He decide who will come to faith and passes over (not predestins) the rest.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using CF

 

[Kormagh]

One more thing. There has been discussions and divisions over interpretation throughout church history. If the majority of the SBC wants to kick out the Reformed Baptists over this, maybe the Reformed can unite in their own denomination, and the two can get to work under their own banners and stop squabbling.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using CF

 

[MrJim]

One more thing. There has been discussions and divisions over interpretation throughout church history. If the majority of the SBC wants to kick out the Reformed Baptists over this, maybe the Reformed can unite in their own denomination, and the two can get to work under their own banners and stop squabbling.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using CF

Welcome to the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches

 

[Kormagh]

Welcome to the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches

There we go! Why stay where they are not wanted when they have somewhere welcoming to go?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using CF

 

[GQ Chris]

It isn't futile to argue. Sometimes you need to argue.

 

[Kormagh]

It isn't futile to argue. Sometimes you need to argue.

it's futile if neither side will give in.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using CF

 

[desmalia]

it's futile if neither side will give in.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using CF

It shouldn't ever be about giving in. And is it is not wrong to discuss these things in detail. Where we so often fall short is when we make it about proving ourselves right instead of knowing and defending the nature and work of the Lord. The debate itself is necessary. The problem is we are fallen humans who too often fall into the wrong attitudes when proceeding with such. More prayer before posting would probably be helpful.

I know for me, I am constantly irritated by how badly anti-Calvinists often represent Calvinism. If someone really hates the doctrines, it would be far more helpful to take time to understand what it actually is first instead of just bashing it based on horrible misconceptions. But that's a common problem to be dealt with one post at a time. Praying for more patience in this area.

 

[jomarc]

Perhaps "futile" is the wrong word.

Perhaps "it doesn't matter" is the right way to approach this. Provided, of course, that we do what we are instructed to do: that is, to follow the Great Commission and teach the gospel. God ultimately saves us (whether predestined or not) and we are his instruments to assist in that great and might cause.

It is the Holy Spirit that must do the convicting.

We just do as we are told, and in the end we will learn which of the two 'beliefs' is right once we get to Heaven. However, at that point we probably will not care.

I do feel it is wrong for a Calvinist to feel that "invitations" are unnecessary. But I also feel that the Arminian who thinks that he has "saved" someone is equally as wrong.

We just need to do what we are told, and then put the matter in God's hands.

 

[desmalia]

Perhaps "futile" is the wrong word.

Perhaps "it doesn't matter" is the right way to approach this.

Anything to do with the very nature of God absolutely does matter, so I have to thoroughly disagree with this.

Provided, of course, that we do what we are instructed to do: that is, to follow the Great Commission and teach the gospel. God ultimately saves us (whether predestined or not) and we are his instruments to assist in that great and might cause.

I'm sure we can all agree that we are to preach the Gospel to all. We don't know who the elect are. But we do know that the Gospel message is the means He uses to save us. You seem to keep suggesting that Calvinists don't care about evangelism. The opposite is the case, I can assure you. Perhaps you've got Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism (which is NOT Calvinism at all) mixed up?

It is the Holy Spirit that must do the convicting.

We just do as we are told, and in the end we will learn which of the two 'beliefs' is right once we get to Heaven. However, at that point we probably will not care.

I do feel it is wrong for a Calvinist to feel that "invitations" are unnecessary. But I also feel that the Arminian who thinks that he has "saved" someone is equally as wrong.

We just need to do what we are told, and then put the matter in God's hands.

I get the impression that maybe you're still wrestling with the doctrines of grace (as I was when I first joined CF). And further, you've jumped into some debates and quickly grown tired of them (as I suspect we all do at times!). What I recommend is that you consider discussing these doctrines further in a less volatile forum: Semper Reformanda. These guys (and a few gals) have graciously taught me lots over the years.

If you prefer to discuss evangelism in the Baptist forum, that's great! But let me suggest that you focus on that instead of trying to shut down a debate that's been going on for centuries, and will continue on until the Lord returns. After all, the debate itself is, or at least should be, about knowing our Lord more intimately and glorifying Him. We don't always do it so well, but it is a worthy pursuit.

 

[jomarc]

Thanks. I grew up in a church that leaned toward Arminianism. That church recently split over matters that were not related to Calvinism. I went to the new church. Sadly the former church attributes everything to Calvinism....this church even tried to have us blackballed out of our local SBC association. Their efforts failed.

I am very happy where I am. My pastor (the former pastor of the other church) does adhere to Reformed theology. But in the pulpit he only preaches from the Scriptures. He does not get into Arminian/Calvinist debates at all.

From this experience I do find myself leaning toward the Calvinistic point of view. Not because of the battle that has been waged. Instead...it is because of the Scriptures that I study.

Again. Thanks for the information.

 

[MrJim]

Thanks. I grew up in a church that leaned toward Arminianism. That church recently split over matters that were not related to Calvinism. I went to the new church. Sadly the former church attributes everything to Calvinism....this church even tried to have us blackballed out of our local SBC association. Their efforts failed.

I am very happy where I am. My pastor (the former pastor of the other church) does adhere to Reformed theology. But in the pulpit he only preaches from the Scriptures. He does not get into Arminian/Calvinist debates at all.

From this experience I do find myself leaning toward the Calvinistic point of view. Not because of the battle that has been waged. Instead...it is because of the Scriptures that I study.

Again. Thanks for the information.

As a former converted Calvinist (for 10 years ) I find myself in the Arminian view for the same reason:

Not because of the battle that has been waged. Instead...it is because of the Scriptures that I study.

...funny how that is, folks coming down on differing views believing the other is mistaken because of misunderstood reading of same Scriptures.

I was in a Reformed Baptist Church~I'm sure they'd welcome refugee SBC but the congregation I attended was amillenial so they'd have to check the Darbyism at the door

 

[Kormagh]

http://centuri0n.blogspot.com/2012/06/southern-baptist-diagnostics.html?m=1

Sent from my SPH-D710 using CF

 

[His_disciple3]

The never-ending discussion that is going on between the Arminian and Calvinist camps of the SBC is futile.

Can't we just all agree that God uses men to spread his word. And that no one can be saved unless the Holy Spirit is involved.

Regardless of where you stand in the Arminian/Calvinist aspect of theology, we are ALL called to teach others about Christ and to make disciples. And whether you want to believe it or not, YOU...a human...cannot save anyone. God and GOD ALONE determines who is and is not saved.

Let's just all follow the Bible and do what we are called to do. Let's leave the world's politicking to all of those folks out in Washington. It certainly doesn't belong in our churches.

Really dude, another thread on calvinism?


there is not two gospels, calvinist gospel is totally different, from saying that God puts salvation out there and those that Believe (saved by grace through faith) shall be saved. it is not world politicking, it is bibical doctrine verses man's doctrine, both will not lead into heaven. either God says You must believe or He says I will make you believe!

Galatians 1:6-12
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
KJV

look careful at verse 12, it can't be taught, it only comes by the revelation of who Jesus Christ is. do we believe that Jesus can save us through faith, or do we believe that he has already saved us through election?

John 3:17-18
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
KJV

calvinist say that some are condemned before time begin but John says that he didn't come to condemn but to save, also It says that the world might be saved not that the world(of calvinism has already been saved) but that they might be saved sure sounds like a choice to me!

 

[His_disciple3]

In my experience, the biggest hurdle in this debate is man's free will. The Arminians are so determined to keep mans choice as the determining factor in salvation. If they would just understand that the Calvinists agree that man has to choose, but that they believe that mans choice is bound by his nature, and that God must change the heart so that man will be willing to choose him.
Secondly, that both sides agree that the gospel should be preached to all. The atonement is sufficient for all but Calvinists believe it is effective for the elect.
Thirdly, God elects. It's all over the Bible. He is loving AND just. He decide who will come to faith and passes over (not predestins) the rest.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using CF

but what divides the two is that God doesn't change the hearts of all and let them choose

yes election is all over the scriptures but so is free-will. the thing that is omitted or misunderstood by calvinist is foreknowledge, God is not a respect of persons and that is what Calvinism makes Him a respect of persons

 

[DesertScroll]

In my experience, the biggest hurdle in this debate is man's free will. The Arminians are so determined to keep mans choice as the determining factor in salvation. If they would just understand that the Calvinists agree that man has to choose, but that they believe that mans choice is bound by his nature, and that God must change the heart so that man will be willing to choose him.
Secondly, that both sides agree that the gospel should be preached to all. The atonement is sufficient for all but Calvinists believe it is effective for the elect.
Thirdly, God elects. It's all over the Bible. He is loving AND just. He decide who will come to faith and passes over (not predestins) the rest.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using CF

Very true.

A free-will separate from God is an idolatry of the self.

It tries to have light, separate from God's light. If God is light, then any light that is separate from Him is not light. That choice (free will) that must be separate from God has big consequences.
----

Really dude, another thread on calvinism?


there is not two gospels, calvinist gospel is totally different, from saying that God puts salvation out there and those that Believe (saved by grace through faith) shall be saved. it is not world politicking, it is bibical doctrine verses man's doctrine, both will not lead into heaven. either God says You must believe or He says I will make you believe!

Galatians 1:6-12
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
KJV

look careful at verse 12, it can't be taught, it only comes by the revelation of who Jesus Christ is. do we believe that Jesus can save us through faith, or do we believe that he has already saved us through election?

I have never claimed to be a Calvanist, but ...

Its Eph 2:8, that "By grace you have been saved through faith...".

Once one admits you have been saved by grace... the argument is over. Faith is the means by which grace is realized.

It doesn't say by grace you have a chance to be saved.... but being saved is by grace. Verse 9 states that the gift is being saved.

John 3:17-18
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
KJV

calvinist say that some are condemned before time begin but John says that he didn't come to condemn but to save, also It says that the world might be saved not that the world(of calvinism has already been saved) but that they might be saved sure sounds like a choice to me!

Jesus did come to save... those whom the Father gave Him (John 10:27-29).

"And Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind." John 9:39

John 3:17 is reflective of the subjunctive mood which permeates the entire discussion. 'May be having eternal life, may be having life, may be being saved'. The only verse which usually retains the subjunctive mood is v.17. I wouldn't rely on it to make an argument unless you are willing to also say ' may be having eternal life' in regards to faith in Jesus.

Verse 17 is also akin to Rom 5:18

"So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men."

Life is there for all men, but not all will claim it. Darkness hates the light, it is impossible for it to desire the light.

"Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I speak the truth you do not believe Me." John 8:43-45
"He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God." John 9:47


Life is there, but not everyone can claim it. The works must be wrought in God (John 3:21).

but what divides the two is that God doesn't change the hearts of all and let them choose

yes election is all over the scriptures but so is free-will. the thing that is omitted or misunderstood by calvinist is foreknowledge, God is not a respect of persons and that is what Calvinism makes Him a respect of persons

Foreknowledge is not left out... God knowing what will happen is not inconsistent to election.

As far as respector of persons, for starters God doesn't show partiality in regards to nations in regards to being saved. But that from any nation anyone who believes may be saved (Acts 10:34,35). In other wods, one does not have to be a physical descendant of Israel.
Nor does God show partiality in regards to specific persons as only the righteous will be saved, not sinners (faith in Jesus and His righteousness Php 3:9).

But God's election and choice are not based upon certain person's, but on God's choice alone:

"[...] for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls." Rom 9:11

"So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy." Rom 9:16


Not because of works... includes foreknowledge. Not means not, regardless of time frame...

It does not depend upon man's will or working, but on God.


Trying to have a light without God will always boil down to idolatry. I will always refuse to attend a church that tries to teach that light without God is possible.

 

[His_disciple3]

Very true.

A free-will separate from God is an idolatry of the self.

It tries to have light, separate from God's light. If God is light, then any light that is separate from Him is not light. That choice (free will) that must be separate from God has big consequences.
----

I have never claimed to be a Calvanist, but ...

Its Eph 2:8, that "By grace you have been saved through faith...".

Once one admits you have been saved by grace... the argument is over. Faith is the means by which grace is realized.

It doesn't say by grace you have a chance to be saved.... but being saved is by grace. Verse 9 states that the gift is being saved.



Jesus did come to save... those whom the Father gave Him (John 10:27-29).

"And Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind." John 9:39

John 3:17 is reflective of the subjunctive mood which permeates the entire discussion. 'May be having eternal life, may be having life, may be being saved'. The only verse which usually retains the subjunctive mood is v.17. I wouldn't rely on it to make an argument unless you are willing to also say ' may be having eternal life' in regards to faith in Jesus.

Verse 17 is also akin to Rom 5:18

"So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men."

Life is there for all men, but not all will claim it. Darkness hates the light, it is impossible for it to desire the light.

"Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I speak the truth you do not believe Me." John 8:43-45
"He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God." John 9:47


Life is there, but not everyone can claim it. The works must be wrought in God (John 3:21).


Foreknowledge is not left out... God knowing what will happen is not inconsistent to election.

As far as respector of persons, for starters God doesn't show partiality in regards to nations in regards to being saved. But that from any nation anyone who believes may be saved (Acts 10:34,35). In other wods, one does not have to be a physical descendant of Israel.
Nor does God show partiality in regards to specific persons as only the righteous will be saved, not sinners (faith in Jesus and His righteousness Php 3:9).

But God's election and choice are not based upon certain person's, but on God's choice alone:

"[...] for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls." Rom 9:11

"So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy." Rom 9:16


Not because of works... includes foreknowledge. Not means not, regardless of time frame...

It does not depend upon man's will or working, but on God.


Trying to have a light without God will always boil down to idolatry. I will always refuse to attend a church that tries to teach that light without God is possible.

The Holy Ghost draws, Jesus said "If I be lifted up I will draw "ALL" men unto me," but not "ALL" will be saved so with the calling of God, some can refuse that calling ( this is the will of men, that they love darkness rather than light) if one can refuse that light than by not refusing the light, one can recieve that light. Jesus said " I have kept all that you gave me "except" ( this creates a big problem with calvinism) Judas. if God forces you to have faith in Him , than that is not faith that is the power/force of God, the respect of persons is not dealing with nations in regards to being saved. read the contents it is about judgement , if God is not a respect of persons with Judgement then if one is pardoned then "ALL" must be pardoned, or if one is Damned then "ALL" must be damned, Unless He has predetermined a escape/door from that damnation and the convicted chooses to walk through that door of redemption!!

 

[Kormagh]

calvinist say that some are condemned before time begin but John says that he didn't come to condemn but to save, also It says that the world might be saved not that the world(of calvinism has already been saved) but that they might be saved sure sounds like a choice to me!

If they would just understand that the Calvinists agree that man has to choose, but that they believe that mans choice is bound by his nature, and that God must change the heart so that man will be willing to choose him.

We are elected TO BE saved, not saved already.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using CF

 

[desmalia]

Thanks. I grew up in a church that leaned toward Arminianism. That church recently split over matters that were not related to Calvinism. I went to the new church. Sadly the former church attributes everything to Calvinism....this church even tried to have us blackballed out of our local SBC association. Their efforts failed.

I am very happy where I am. My pastor (the former pastor of the other church) does adhere to Reformed theology. But in the pulpit he only preaches from the Scriptures. He does not get into Arminian/Calvinist debates at all.

From this experience I do find myself leaning toward the Calvinistic point of view. Not because of the battle that has been waged. Instead...it is because of the Scriptures that I study.

Again. Thanks for the information.

Happy to help.

I came to the doctrines of grace through Scripture study as well. I didn't know what Calvinism was other than that it was some sort of evil cult or something.

That same revival is happening all over the world right now in churches wherever the word of God is preached and highly valued. Calvary Chapel is a great example, as they do strive for accuracy and hold the Scripture in true high regard. So naturally, some members are becoming Calvinists, sometimes without even knowing it initially. His total Trinitarian sovereignty permeates all things,and the more He reveals that to us, the more of His wonders we celebrate and rest in, and the more humbled we are, as His holy light reveals just how wretched and undeserving we are of His mercy and grace.

I agree with you that a pastor should not be "preaching Calvinism" each Sunday at the pulpit. It can be helpful to do a series or adult Sunday School periodically to examine and explain the doctrines. But overall, if every Sunday the focus comes down to the five points it's terribly unbalanced.

 

[His_disciple3]

calvinist say that some are condemned before time begin but John says that he didn't come to condemn but to save, also It says that the world might be saved not that the world(of calvinism has already been saved) but that they might be saved sure sounds like a choice to me!



We are elected TO BE saved, not saved already.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using CF

ISAIAH 14:1 says that God has yet to choose Israel. and this is in between Isaiah 13 talking about the last days and right before it tells about the judgement, so it is not elected then judged , but judged then by foreknowledge of that judgement, elected.

Isaiah 14:1
14 For the Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.
KJV

if all calvinist would just stop and really think about what you are saying, you are calling God a rapist of some sort that forces His love on people who can't resist. that's not the God of the Holy Scriptures,

Abraham was counted righteous because of his Faith in God. not because God force Abraham to believe. Paul said that He suffered greatly that the elect might obtain salvation, so isn't that saying that there was a chance the the elect might not obtain salvation, doesn't sound like Paul even understood, the doctrine of grace according to John Calvin!

2 Timothy 2:10
10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
KJV

hadn't noticed that before look careful Paul said referring to the elect that they may also obtain salvation, wonder who else has salvation other than the elect, another biblical strike against calvinism