False Dicotomy: Calvinism vs Arminianism

[Koey]

A false dicotomy is when people seem to think there are only two sides to argue, when in fact there are maybe three sides or more. Why do so many people only argue the two, Calvinism & Arminianism, and leave a large chunk of the Church out of the loop?

Does ANYONE know of a web site that compares not just Arminianism vs Calvinism, but also includes Catholic and even Orthodox understanding of the whole topic relating to predestination? I really respect the theologies of both those groups as well, and am sure they have some wonderful insights to add to the discussion.

I mean Arminianism and Calvinism are only new doctrines. That leaves out over 1500 years of Church history and understanding on the topic. I think that any discussion on the topic ought to recognize the rest of the Church.

 

[Van]

Great post Koey, I have found on the web clear presentations of Orthodox soteriology, but I have not found such for the Roman Catholic soteriology. Also note that several churches accept some Calvinist points, such as the Baptists accepting OSAS, but hold a range of views, part Calvinsim, part Arminianism, and part Open Theism concering other rest of soteriology.

 

[stumpjumper]

Agreed^

This is a link to a blog entry that is accurate in regards to comparing the Confessional Lutheran soteriological view to Calvinism and Arminianism: http://threehierarchies.blogspot.com/2005/08/lutheranism-between-calvinism-and.html

One thing to remembers is that both Calvinism and Arminianism are Reformed soteriological positions and hence there are a great many other perspectives...

 

[cygnusx1]

I don't think it's simply Arminian and Calvinist , there are different sorts of Arminians (some are Open Theists , most are NOT ) There are differences amongst Calvinists too ( some accept God loves everyone others do not!)

so to say there are only two sides being represented is a genereralisation I think .

btw the Orthodox have on many ocassions put forward their views in soteriology , not so many Roman Catholics have.

 

[Easystreet]

In a simple way down through the years each age had its theological emphasis they were struggling with. While certain issues in theology stood out at different times in Church History these same debates were going on. The reason we don’t notice it or evidence it as much is because they did not have mass communications as we do.

The two majors sides are what you might say a refining of long held positions from the beginning of the Church. I would posit that the two positions are the hub and springing from each hub are its difference applications and interpretations. There is always a starting thesis of some sort to get the theological ball rolling.

Perhaps in the minds of those who grace this web site the subject of Election is of little importance. As one moves toward a more conservative position of Scripture you find more participation in this particular doctrine or issue. As one moves away from the conservative approach to the Scripture the argument changes. What is important to the “evangelical” groups fades as the “progressive” or “liberal” groups are examined. It is my point of view that once away from the evangelical camp the issue with respect to salvation moves from the faith, minus works to works plus faith. More emphasis is placed on social welfare as the means to spiritual wellness vs. the emphasis of evangelicals to mentor the heart‘s welfare then the social welfare. It is reversed.

In the evangelical camp the doctrine of salvation is and will be debated forever. In the liberal camp social justice is the debate with respect to real Christianity. Salvation is achieved not so much by an act of faith but a focus on good works with faith as come along partner.

 

[Koey]

In a simple way down through the years each age had its theological emphasis they were struggling with. While certain issues in theology stood out at different times in Church History these same debates were going on. The reason we don’t notice it or evidence it as much is because they did not have mass communications as we do.

The two majors sides are what you might say a refining of long held positions from the beginning of the Church. I would posit that the two positions are the hub and springing from each hub are its difference applications and interpretations. There is always a starting thesis of some sort to get the theological ball rolling.

Perhaps in the minds of those who grace this web site the subject of Election is of little importance. As one moves toward a more conservative position of Scripture you find more participation in this particular doctrine or issue. As one moves away from the conservative approach to the Scripture the argument changes. What is important to the “evangelical” groups fades as the “progressive” or “liberal” groups are examined. It is my point of view that once away from the evangelical camp the issue with respect to salvation moves from the faith, minus works to works plus faith. More emphasis is placed on social welfare as the means to spiritual wellness vs. the emphasis of evangelicals to mentor the heart‘s welfare then the social welfare. It is reversed.

In the evangelical camp the doctrine of salvation is and will be debated forever. In the liberal camp social justice is the debate with respect to real Christianity. Salvation is achieved not so much by an act of faith but a focus on good works with faith as come along partner.

I find I am agreeing with you. I began my Christian journey as an evangelical, but find it is too inadequate for me. I believe that the faith:works argument from the Protestant side is inadequate, and their accusations of Catholics false. Historic (ie. Catholic) Christianity does not teach salvation by works, but salvation by a living faith (faith alive with works). That I am beginning to believe is a more satisfactory answer to the issue you brought up.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

A false dicotomy is when people seem to think there are only two sides to argue, when in fact there are maybe three sides or more. Why do so many people only argue the two, Calvinism & Arminianism, and leave a large chunk of the Church out of the loop?

Does ANYONE know of a web site that compares not just Arminianism vs Calvinism, but also includes Catholic and even Orthodox understanding of the whole topic relating to predestination? I really respect the theologies of both those groups as well, and am sure they have some wonderful insights to add to the discussion.

I mean Arminianism and Calvinism are only new doctrines. That leaves out over 1500 years of Church history and understanding on the topic. I think that any discussion on the topic ought to recognize the rest of the Church.

Well...there are Pelagians, too...

And about Armnianism and Calvinism being new doctrines...maybe under those names, but the debate has been around at least as long as Augustine.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

I find I am agreeing with you. I began my Christian journey as an evangelical, but find it is too inadequate for me. I believe that the faith:works argument from the Protestant side is inadequate, and their accusations of Catholics false. Historic (ie. Catholic) Christianity does not teach salvation by works, but salvation by a living faith (faith alive with works)...

Funny, but what I put in bold in your quote is exactly what Reformed theology (or Calvinism) teaches...actually, it's what has been taught by every Protestant church I've gone to (Assembly of God, Calvary Chapel, Baptist, non-denominational...)

I used this model for an adult Sunday school class (and remember, Paul says in Ephesians that we are saved by grace and through faith):

Faith + Works = Hell

If we think we have to add anything to faith to qualify for salvation (like baptism, or tithing, or living a sinless life), we are missing the mark. The book of Galatians is pretty clear on this.


Faith - Works = Hell

If we think that works are totally irrelevant to our salvation, that the only thing that matters is maybe whether we've said the 'sinner's prayer' or not, we are missing the mark. James says that faith without works is dead.

We need to get away from the '+' '-' and switch away from a mathematical statement to a logical statement to get it right.

If faith, then works = Heaven

If we have a saving faith, then works will be evident in our lives. Again, Paul says in Ephesians that we are His workmanship, created for good works in Christ.

 

[stumpjumper]

And about Armnianism and Calvinism being new doctrines...maybe under those names, but the debate has been around at least as long as Augustine.

The problem is that some aspects of Calvinism and Arminianism can be traced back through the Church but that both Calvinists and Arminianists make some soteriological assumptions that other theological views on soteriology do not make.

Within the Catholic Church, Molinistic and Thomistic views are similiar to the dichotomy between Calvinism and Arminianism but there are a number of differing foundational beliefs such as the view of free will (the rejection of total depravity) and the emphasis on a sacramental life that neither the Calvinist or Arminianist position would accept.

Lutherans, like myself, may accept total depravity (it's actually not emphasized in the confessions but Luther had a view very similar) but we would also empasize the sacraments (Baptism, Eucharist, and Confession) and consider them to be a synergistic part of our sanctification...

No matter how you look at it though it is generally is a false dichotomy. Aminianists will emphasize that we are foreordained based upon our free will choices and Calvinists of course will emphasize double predestination.

I would say that both soteriological formulas emphasize certain scripture while overlooking other passages and that is why there are so many debates among Calvinists and Arminianists... Neither view is the completely correct interpretation of scripture...

They both look at soteriology from a juridical view as well while that is more a later addition from western theology. I believe a vocational or instrumental view of justification and living in Christ is much more accurate... 2 Corinthians 5 lays out the instrumental nature of the Christian life while Paul elsewhere talks about our vocational calling and giving glory to God in that which we were called to do...

But then again... I am neither a Calvinist, an Arminianist, a Pelagian, or a semi-pelagian

 

[Easystreet]

I believe many of us would not identify with the actual persons of which we seem to hang our arguments. And as it must be there are these starting points. Without them we most likely would event or pull from others a belief to refine and define.

So as it is we, in my estimation, use these different persons and schools of thought to debate from and clarify our position.

Gordon

 

[Koey]

Funny, but what I put in bold in your quote is exactly what Reformed theology (or Calvinism) teaches...actually, it's what has been taught by every Protestant church I've gone to (Assembly of God, Calvary Chapel, Baptist, non-denominational...)

I used this model for an adult Sunday school class (and remember, Paul says in Ephesians that we are saved by grace and through faith):

Faith + Works = Hell

If we think we have to add anything to faith to qualify for salvation (like baptism, or tithing, or living a sinless life), we are missing the mark. The book of Galatians is pretty clear on this.


Faith - Works = Hell

If we think that works are totally irrelevant to our salvation, that the only thing that matters is maybe whether we've said the 'sinner's prayer' or not, we are missing the mark. James says that faith without works is dead.

We need to get away from the '+' '-' and switch away from a mathematical statement to a logical statement to get it right.

If faith, then works = Heaven

If we have a saving faith, then works will be evident in our lives. Again, Paul says in Ephesians that we are His workmanship, created for good works in Christ.

Interesting comment!

Galatians is talking about the works of the OT law. James refers to faith being dead without works, in the context then James means good works, not the works of the law. Galatians and James are speaking of two different kinds of works.

So, Catholics, as I understand it have faith and works together simultaneously (i.e. a faith alive with good works), and Protestants seem to place them sequentially, one after the other, first faith (alone), then works. However, we Protestants must admit that Luther added the word "alone." It is not in Scripture.

I don't see the problem as being one of faith PLUS works either, but faith alive with works, a living faith, not a dead faith that has no good works. I frankly think that we Protestants have gotten it wrong, and that the historic (Catholic) Church was right all along, at least on this one.

 

[stumpjumper]

So, Catholics, as I understand it have faith and works together simultaneously (i.e. a faith alive with good works), and Protestants seem to place them sequentially, one after the other, first faith (alone), then works. However, we Protestants must admit that Luther added the word "alone." It is not in Scripture.

It's included in Luther's view of faith actually..

Faith is God's work in us, that changes us and gives new birth from God. (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and makes us completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits, our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever. He stumbles around and looks for faith and good works, even though he does not know what faith or good works are. Yet he gossips and chatters about faith and good works with many words.