Do Anglicans tend more towards Calvinism or Arminianism?

[MichaelNZ]

I didn't think that predestination was in the Bible at all until a few days ago, when I listened to an episode of Matt Slick's radio show (accessible from carm.org) and later looked in the Bible and found that indeed, Romans 8:29-30 teaches predestination.

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified"

I knew that predestination was taught in the Thirty-Nine Articles, but I'd never seen Biblical support for it before.

I'm a bit confused now, and I'd like to know whether you, as Anglicans, tend more towards Arminianism or Calvinism. There seems to be Biblical support for both positions.

Arminianism

• Conditional Election (God predestines those whom He foreknew would have faith in Christ to salvation)
• Unlimited Atonement (Christ died for all, but not all will receive the fruits of His Sacrifice)
• Resistable Grace (one can resist the grace of the Holy Ghost)
• Conditional Perseverance of the Saints (those who keep the faith will be assured of their salvation; apostates can lose their salvation)

Calvinism

• Unconditional election (God chooses whom He will unconditionally)
• Limited Atonement (Christ only died for those predestined to salvation)
• Irresistable Grace (one cannot resist the grace of the Holy Ghost, i.e. one who has been predestined to salvation has no choice but to believe)
• Perseverance of the Saints (a person who has been saved can do nothing to lose their salvation)

 

[PaladinValer]

I have problems with both, because they base theology on their soteriology instead of allowing the Incarnation to be the basis of soteriology.

We are saved by Jesus the Christ (therefore, the results of Incarnational theology and Christology), not by what our soteriology is. Our basis of our doctrine should be Him, not start with the process and look at Jesus for defense of it.

Theosis is neither Calvinist or Arminian.

 

[Albion]

Clearly, Anglicanism was mainly predestinarian (I don't say "Calvinist" because that implies many other beliefs held by the Reformed and Presbyterian churches) for the first several centuries following the English Reformation. Gradually that changed, and today a majority of Anglicans are no doubt Arminians (although that term is also not the most accurate IMO). As with other matters of doctrine and practice, both views are to be found among the Anglicans of the world.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Not either, but Lutheran, which is certainly permissible for TEC which is in full communion with ELCA.

And I agree with what PV said. My soteriology is all about faith in Christ, not faith in a soteriological theory.

 

[MKJ]

I don't really like those two terms being presented as if they are the only options. I'd tend to say, neither.

 

[mark46]

I agree that our theology (and our faith) cannot be based on anything but Jesus. Soteriolical explanations cannot t the center.

I disagree with your statement regarding theosis. I can make little sense of theosis in a Calvinisitic framework.

I have problems with both, because they base theology on their soteriology instead of allowing the Incarnation to be the basis of soteriology.

We are saved by Jesus the Christ (therefore, the results of Incarnational theology and Christology), not by what our soteriology is. Our basis of our doctrine should be Him, not start with the process and look at Jesus for defense of it.

Theosis is neither Calvinist or Arminian.

 

[PaladinValer]

I disagree with your statement regarding theosis. I can make little sense of theosis in a Calvinisitic framework.

Might I inquire where I said it does?

 

[RadixLecti]

I would say that I hold to neither since both try to force a set of logic onto Scripture in order to reconcile divine revelation with human reasoning. The problem is that there appear to be logical inconsistencies within the Biblical text. Both Calvinism and Arminianism stress certain passages of Scripture while minimizing others. However since all of Scripture conveys the spiritual truth of God's plan of redemption, then all that can be said is that the whole of Scripture is true and cannot be reconciled to human reasoning.

I would say I hold to what some might consider a "Lutheran" view. However it is also a historic Anglican view which can be seen when comparing the 39 Articles to the BCP's teaching of Baptismal regeneration.

I would also add that Calvinism and Arminianism are restricted to Protestantism. There are other theories within Catholicism such as Thomism and Molinism, both of which are very interesting and worth learning more about.

If I had to choose between Calvinism and Arminianism, I would actually choose Calvinism. The problem with Arminianism is that it openly contradicts the historic doctrine of Original Sin. There is a form of Arminianism ("Wesleyan Arminianism") that acknowledges the need for God's grace to overcome Original Sin. Without this distinction it seems that some have come close to teaching heretical teachings like semi-Pelagianism (such as Charles Finney or at least some would say).

Calvinism, Lutheranism and Thomism teach monergistic election - the idea (which is clearly expressed in Scripture) that election to salvation is based completely on the will of God and has nothing to do with the work of humans. However each of these views has differing nuances as to how this occurs and the degree of logical paradox that each school of thought is willing to accept.

 

[LuxMundi]

I'm a bit confused now, and I'd like to know whether you, as Anglicans, tend more towards Arminianism or Calvinism. There seems to be Biblical support for both positions.

Both Wesley (Arminian) and Toplady (Calvinist) accepted the doctrine of predestination and subscribed to the Thirty-Nine Articles; I say this to highlight the fact that the doctrine itself is biblical and different people understand it in different ways and the 'confessional' Anglican position allows for both.

Personally I'd always be inclined to ask what Paul meant than what Calvin thought he meant but hey...

 

[Albion]

Both Wesley (Arminian) and Toplady (Calvinist) accepted the doctrine of predestination and subscribed to the Thirty-Nine Articles; I say this to highlight the fact that the doctrine itself is biblical and different people understand it in different ways and the 'confessional' Anglican position allows for both.

Good point.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Personally I'd always be inclined to ask what Paul meant than what Calvin thought he meant but hey...

Good point! Personally, I'm kind of interested in what Calvin thought Paul meant. OTOH, I'm much less interested in what Calvin's followers think Calvin meant. IMHO, a lot of them are wingnuts, and have even more of a "prickles vs. goo" imbalance than he did. And so I find Calvin interesting reading, but Calvinists not so much.

 

[mark46]

Yes, predestination is definitely in Scripture. However, the view of Wesley (who removed the Article in his Article of Religion for the Methodist Church) is much different than Calvinistists of the type and even more different than the extreme Calvinists of this century.

Both Wesley (Arminian) and Toplady (Calvinist) accepted the doctrine of predestination and subscribed to the Thirty-Nine Articles; I say this to highlight the fact that the doctrine itself is biblical and different people understand it in different ways and the 'confessional' Anglican position allows for both.

Personally I'd always be inclined to ask what Paul meant than what Calvin thought he meant but hey...

 

[mark46]

I thought that you were implying that theosis could be appropriate in either framework. I apologize for misunderstanding.

Might I inquire where I said it does?

 

[PaladinValer]

I thought that you were implying that theosis could be appropriate in either framework. I apologize for misunderstanding.

Don't apologize. While I am usually very careful, I fully admit my language can be a bit confusing sometimes.

 

[Unshaven]

My main problem with these categories are that they are engaged in a dialectic: Arminianism grows out of a Calvinistic framework, but I would be inclined myself to be sceptical of working with anything offered by Calvin, I don't want him to frame how I think about the question.

To be honest,I haven't given over much thought to the question of initiative in God, I was chatting to a doctoral student who had studied most of the major fathers on the question (I was quite surprised this had never been done before) and it turns out that it's only Augustine that denies it. (I think that was more for your interest PV than any much relevance to the argument!)

I'll freely admit I haven't actually given it a great deal of thought...but on the scriptural passage, apart from the obvious caution that Paul isn't writing with Calvinist baggage, so the term may not have quite the connotations for him that it has for us...I mean the bible is hardly uambiguous on this subject, just yesterday I was reading John 6...and if there is a chapter (or gospel!) that stresses the sovereign will of God in coming to faith... (e.g. 44: '“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day",' and 64b-5 'For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”') and yet throughout there are all these chords of Human initiative involved, (especially v29: "Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.&#8221 with an emphasis on a human needing to believe, see, hear, eat, drink. It's a mixed approach to salvation...incoherent? Possibly, but again, John doesn't share our hang-ups on the matter.

The point is that there is a wider picture on offer in the bible and we should be careful of honing in too much on one passage with a certain piece of stimulating vocabulary.

 

[R_A]

I have problems with both, because they base theology on their soteriology instead of allowing the Incarnation to be the basis of soteriology.

We are saved by Jesus the Christ (therefore, the results of Incarnational theology and Christology), not by what our soteriology is. Our basis of our doctrine should be Him, not start with the process and look at Jesus for defense of it.

Theosis is neither Calvinist or Arminian.

I've seen this mentioned on several sites, and would love to have it fleshed out more, if you have some time. How do the Calvinists and Arminians base their theology on soteriology? What does that mean, specifically?

From the way the two sides have always explained it to me, they based their view on a total, holistic system of scripture.

For example, Calvinists teach the following whole, overall, meta-Biblical system:

God chooses the elect, by grace; they are given the gift of faith; by faith they are justified, and become regenerate (the Holy Spirit dwells in them). Being regenerate and having God dwell in them, it follows that they wouldn't need or be able to fall away and ever lose faith -- as saints they wouldn't be able to do such a depraved thing, and faith wasn't theirs to begin with so they can't do anything to either lose or gain it.

This, on all sides, is buttressed by Scriptural quotes, and so is the Arminian system on the other side; the Arminian proofs seem much more persuasive, namely that free will does play an important role in our salvation.

How do you get out of this choice, and select a third option? Where, in either of the two systems, was rest laid upon soteriology? What is the third option -- does free will play a role or not?

 

[elahmine]

Neither grace is for everyone who choose to believe that the Messiah is the Son of God who died for everyone's atonement.

 

[PaladinValer]

I've seen this mentioned on several sites, and would love to have it fleshed out more, if you have some time. How do the Calvinists and Arminians base their theology on soteriology?

They just do. They start there instead upon the Incarnation.

What does that mean, specifically?

It means they are both wrong.

From the way the two sides have always explained it to me, they based their view on a total, holistic system of scripture.

...beginning with how people are saved.

How do you get out of this choice, and select a third option?

By beginning with the Incarnation.

Where, in either of the two systems, was rest laid upon soteriology? What is the third option -- does free will play a role or not?

Free will or not is not where we begin. That's Arminianism and Calvinism talking. We begin with the Incarnation, not whether we have free will or not.

 

[R_A]

...beginning with how people are saved.

What sources do you recommend for substantiating that view? I can't claim to be an expert on Calvinism, but I have read the Institutes, the Westminster Confession, several Puritan and modern Reformed works. Maybe they do base their view starting from soteriology, without realizing it, which is why I'm hoping you can show this in a specific way.

Free will or not is not where we begin. That's Arminianism and Calvinism talking. We begin with the Incarnation, not whether we have free will or not.

Ok, say we begin with the Incarnation. Then what? What is the holistic, meta-Biblical system system as you would teach it to a neophyte?

God creates man, does He call him irresistibly or not? Is regeneration instant? Is it reversible? And does free will exist or not, in the end?

 

[PaladinValer]

What sources do you recommend for substantiating that view? I can't claim to be an expert on Calvinism, but I have read the Institutes, the Westminster Confession, several Puritan and modern Reformed works. Maybe they do base their view starting from soteriology, without realizing it, which is why I'm hoping you can show this in a specific way.

The question is always based on free will, not on Jesus.

Ok, say we begin with the Incarnation. Then what? What is the holistic, meta-Biblical system system as you would teach it to a neophyte?

Who is Jesus? How is He God? How is He human? Etc.

God creates man, does He call him irresistibly or not? Is regeneration instant? Is it reversible? And does free will exist or not, in the end?

Look to Jesus, not to whether we have free will or not.