Homosexuality: Calvinist vs Arminian perspective

[Roman57]

The debate as to whether homosexuality is a sin often revolves around the question whether or not its a choice. But this assumes that something has to be a choice in order for it to be a sin -- which is implicitly an Arminian assumption. So its interesting that Calvinists, too, argue that homosexuality is a choice. Why can't Calvinists say that homosexuality isn't a choice since everyone was predestined to either go to heaven or hell from birth, so including homosexuality as a part of this predestination-package won't be any more unfair? Thus, it would make logical sense if Arminians were to say homosexuality is a choice while Calvinists were to say that it isn't.

However, despite the fact that Arminians would logically be more likely to agree with the statement "homosexuality is a choice", Calvinists would logically be more likely to agree with the statement "homosexuality is a sin". Here is why. The reason for arguing that homosexuality is not a sin (despite Bible clearly teaching that it is), is the fact that, based on secular evidence, homosexuality doesn't seem to be a choice, while sin is a choice. So, again, the underlying assumption here is Arminian: namely, that sin is a choice. So, logically speaking, Calvinist can argue their way out of it by saying "fine, people are born gay, but homosexuality is still a sin, because according to Calvinism every sin is predestined from birth". An Arminian won't be able to argue that way so thats why the Arminian, if faced with a failure of refuting evidence against homosexuality being a choice, would be forced to try to argue that its not a sin.

Combining the two paragraphs above, here is what would happen. An Arminian would, logically, first take "conservative" position and try to argue that homosexuality is a choice. Then, after he fails to make his case, he would, logically, switch to "liberal" side and argue that homosexuality is not a sin. On the other hand, Calvinist would logically be fine simply maintaining a fixed point of view that partly agrees with liberals and partly with conservatives, namely "homosexuality is not a choice but its still a sin, since those people were predestined to sin".

Now, you might notice that in the above I didn't say they "believe" something; I only said "one would logically expect them to believe it" (with the word logically being key word). Because I don't think the actual opinion survey would confirm what I would logically expect in the above discussion. Why not? One logical explanation is maybe because Calvinists used to be Arminians prior to converting to Calvinism. So, back in their Arminian past, they had to say homosexuality is a choice. And then, after they became Calvinist, they never came back to re-evaluate their perspective. Either that, or a different explanation is that Calvinists want to give people milk before giving them hard meat. Openly admitting to predestination would be hard meat that many people can't bear. So, in order to give them milk (since the discussion in question is the one with either non-believers or not true believers) they have to pretend to be Arminian and then argue from Arminian viewpoint.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The debate as to whether homosexuality is a sin often revolves around the question whether or not its a choice. But this assumes that something has to be a choice in order for it to be a sin -- which is implicitly an Arminian assumption. So its interesting that Calvinists, too, argue that homosexuality is a choice. Why can't Calvinists say that homosexuality isn't a choice since everyone was predestined to either go to heaven or hell from birth, so including homosexuality as a part of this predestination-package won't be any more unfair? Thus, it would make logical sense if Arminians were to say homosexuality is a choice while Calvinists were to say that it isn't.

It doesn't have to be one or the other for the Calvinist. The Calvinist who claims that it is a choice is doing so because they see it as logical that it be a choice. There are plenty Calvinists (and others such as myself who don't claim the title) who see that Homosexuality is explicitly the act, and implicitly (perhaps) to include the lifestyle, but not the tendency.

The fact that a person finds themselves attracted to same sex does not of itself make one a homosexual. And I don't mean by that to claim that the attraction is not itself of sin, but that it is not of itself the thing that is explicitly condemned by God in Scriptural references.

However, despite the fact that Arminians would logically be more likely to agree with the statement "homosexuality is a choice", Calvinists would logically be more likely to agree with the statement "homosexuality is a sin". Here is why. The reason for arguing that homosexuality is not a sin (despite Bible clearly teaching that it is), is the fact that, based on secular evidence, homosexuality doesn't seem to be a choice, while sin is a choice. So, again, the underlying assumption here is Arminian: namely, that sin is a choice. So, logically speaking, Calvinist can argue their way out of it by saying "fine, people are born gay, but homosexuality is still a sin, because according to Calvinism every sin is predestined from birth". An Arminian won't be able to argue that way so thats why the Arminian, if faced with a failure of refuting evidence against homosexuality being a choice, would be forced to try to argue that its not a sin.

I'd say we need to rid ourselves of secular teaching concerning what must be categorically called Homosexuality.

Combining the two paragraphs above, here is what would happen. An Arminian would, logically, first take "conservative" position and try to argue that homosexuality is a choice. Then, after he fails to make his case, he would, logically, switch to "liberal" side and argue that homosexuality is not a sin. On the other hand, Calvinist would logically be fine simply maintaining a fixed point of view that partly agrees with liberals and partly with conservatives, namely "homosexuality is not a choice but its still a sin, since those people were predestined to sin".

I don't see it logical that Calvinists would consider predestination to be part of the argument as to what homosexuality is or is not, and as to whether or not it is sin. The doctrine, or logic, of predestination certainly allows for that, but it is not generally part of the argument, I think.

Now, you might notice that in the above I didn't say they "believe" something; I only said "one would logically expect them to believe it" (with the word logically being key word). Because I don't think the actual opinion survey would confirm what I would logically expect in the above discussion. Why not? One logical explanation is maybe because Calvinists used to be Arminians prior to converting to Calvinism. So, back in their Arminian past, they had to say homosexuality is a choice. And then, after they became Calvinist, they never came back to re-evaluate their perspective. Either that, or a different explanation is that Calvinists want to give people milk before giving them hard meat. Openly admitting to predestination would be hard meat that many people can't bear. So, in order to give them milk (since the discussion in question is the one with either non-believers or not true believers) they have to pretend to be Arminian and then argue from Arminian viewpoint.

I don't think that necessarily follows. Neither Calvinists nor Arminians are homogenous groups. One of the reasons Calvinists are often ex-Arminians, or, at least, ex-Self-Determinists, is because they know enough Bible to come to see that their lack of obedience proves their need for Christ and the grace of God, and like it, to see that all is caused by God according to HIS purposes. I.e. Arminians don't have to say that homosexuality is a choice. And Calvinists don't have to say it is not a choice. In fact, I'm constantly being accused of being a Calvinist, and I say both —but then I don't think according to the thinking of many of both Calvinists and Arminians. I think that any sin is willed by the sinner, but not necessarily consciously.

 

[Grip Docility]

The debate as to whether homosexuality is a sin often revolves around the question whether or not its a choice. But this assumes that something has to be a choice in order for it to be a sin -- which is implicitly an Arminian assumption. So its interesting that Calvinists, too, argue that homosexuality is a choice. Why can't Calvinists say that homosexuality isn't a choice since everyone was predestined to either go to heaven or hell from birth, so including homosexuality as a part of this predestination-package won't be any more unfair? Thus, it would make logical sense if Arminians were to say homosexuality is a choice while Calvinists were to say that it isn't.

However, despite the fact that Arminians would logically be more likely to agree with the statement "homosexuality is a choice", Calvinists would logically be more likely to agree with the statement "homosexuality is a sin". Here is why. The reason for arguing that homosexuality is not a sin (despite Bible clearly teaching that it is), is the fact that, based on secular evidence, homosexuality doesn't seem to be a choice, while sin is a choice. So, again, the underlying assumption here is Arminian: namely, that sin is a choice. So, logically speaking, Calvinist can argue their way out of it by saying "fine, people are born gay, but homosexuality is still a sin, because according to Calvinism every sin is predestined from birth". An Arminian won't be able to argue that way so thats why the Arminian, if faced with a failure of refuting evidence against homosexuality being a choice, would be forced to try to argue that its not a sin.

Combining the two paragraphs above, here is what would happen. An Arminian would, logically, first take "conservative" position and try to argue that homosexuality is a choice. Then, after he fails to make his case, he would, logically, switch to "liberal" side and argue that homosexuality is not a sin. On the other hand, Calvinist would logically be fine simply maintaining a fixed point of view that partly agrees with liberals and partly with conservatives, namely "homosexuality is not a choice but its still a sin, since those people were predestined to sin".

Now, you might notice that in the above I didn't say they "believe" something; I only said "one would logically expect them to believe it" (with the word logically being key word). Because I don't think the actual opinion survey would confirm what I would logically expect in the above discussion. Why not? One logical explanation is maybe because Calvinists used to be Arminians prior to converting to Calvinism. So, back in their Arminian past, they had to say homosexuality is a choice. And then, after they became Calvinist, they never came back to re-evaluate their perspective. Either that, or a different explanation is that Calvinists want to give people milk before giving them hard meat. Openly admitting to predestination would be hard meat that many people can't bear. So, in order to give them milk (since the discussion in question is the one with either non-believers or not true believers) they have to pretend to be Arminian and then argue from Arminian viewpoint.

Homosexuality is VERY MUCH A SIN! It is found within the LAW of MOSES and UNDER THE condemnation of DEATH.

The real question is, which one of the SAVED desires to Resurrect MOSES which sequentially Places ALL (OMNIS) of HUMANITY'S Lord and Savior back within His tomb?

Romans 10:5 Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

- Neither Armenian, Calvinist, Open Theist nor Molinist or any other philosophy not found within Canon

 

[SavedByGrace3]

It is most certainly sin, like any other sexual perversion. I believe sexuality in humans to be a suggested/learned behavior. Once the brain is set up to derive pleasure from any kind of sexual behavior, that will always be there. It is best not to start "experimenting" and not to suggest to young people that this is normal or innate within us. Today, children are being exposed to this behavior, and the suggestion is that it is normal and even acceptable. They are hit on every side: TV, movies, games, the internet, even schools. If your kids are in public school... get them out by any means necessary.

2nd Corinthians 10 gives some good teachings about temptation, how to avoid it, and how to find an escape when tested.

The Hebrews carried all sorts of perversions and idolatry out of Egypt with them. The first chance they got, they immediately began to indulge in the behaviors:
1 Corinthians 10:5-8 ISV
5 But God wasn't pleased with most of those people, and so they were struck down in the wilderness.
6 Now their experiences serve as examples for us so that we won't set our hearts on evil as they did.
7 Let's stop being idolaters, as some of them were. As it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to play."
8 Let's stop sinning sexually, as some of them were doing, and on a single day 23,000 fell dead.

These learned behaviors can and will infect you if you ever experiment or are repeatedly exposed to them.

1 Corinthians 10:11-13 ISV
11 These things happened to them to serve as an example, and they were written down as a warning for us in whom the culmination of the ages has been attained.
12 Therefore, whoever thinks he is standing securely should watch out so he doesn't fall.
13 No temptation has overtaken you that is unusual for human beings. But God is faithful, and he will not allow you to be tempted beyond your strength. Instead, along with the temptation he will also provide a way out, so that you may be able to endure it.

You can make anything a sexual object or an idol. It is all learned, and once indulged, it can become a genuine behavior.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The debate as to whether homosexuality is a sin often revolves around the question whether or not its a choice. But this assumes that something has to be a choice in order for it to be a sin -- which is implicitly an Arminian assumption. So its interesting that Calvinists, too, argue that homosexuality is a choice. Why can't Calvinists say that homosexuality isn't a choice since everyone was predestined to either go to heaven or hell from birth, so including homosexuality as a part of this predestination-package won't be any more unfair? Thus, it would make logical sense if Arminians were to say homosexuality is a choice while Calvinists were to say that it isn't.

Your question is presumptive. Calvinists don't argue against choice; predestination does not preclude choice. Calvinists also don't argue as to whether this or that result in life is fair.

Second the definition of "homosexuality" is important to the question. I don't find God saying that one's attraction to a woman is sin, so why should one's attraction to a man be sin? As far as I can tell, it is not the attraction that is condemned, but the dwelling upon it, the acting upon it, the affectation and the deed.

If I stand on this soapbox a little longer, one thing that causes me no end of irritation is the notion taught to young people, who are still trying to get used to their hormones and control their urges, that a sudden wild attraction to someone is only natural, and therefore what defines them. The wrong caused to a boy being brought up to pursue effeminate habits and attributes is beyond description.

However, despite the fact that Arminians would logically be more likely to agree with the statement "homosexuality is a choice", Calvinists would logically be more likely to agree with the statement "homosexuality is a sin". Here is why. The reason for arguing that homosexuality is not a sin (despite Bible clearly teaching that it is), is the fact that, based on secular evidence, homosexuality doesn't seem to be a choice, while sin is a choice. So, again, the underlying assumption here is Arminian: namely, that sin is a choice. So, logically speaking, Calvinist can argue their way out of it by saying "fine, people are born gay, but homosexuality is still a sin, because according to Calvinism every sin is predestined from birth". An Arminian won't be able to argue that way so thats why the Arminian, if faced with a failure of refuting evidence against homosexuality being a choice, would be forced to try to argue that its not a sin.

Still the question: What is "homosexuality"? The tendency, or the inculcation, and the act?

Combining the two paragraphs above, here is what would happen. An Arminian would, logically, first take "conservative" position and try to argue that homosexuality is a choice. Then, after he fails to make his case, he would, logically, switch to "liberal" side and argue that homosexuality is not a sin. On the other hand, Calvinist would logically be fine simply maintaining a fixed point of view that partly agrees with liberals and partly with conservatives, namely "homosexuality is not a choice but its still a sin, since those people were predestined to sin".

Now, you might notice that in the above I didn't say they "believe" something; I only said "one would logically expect them to believe it" (with the word logically being key word). Because I don't think the actual opinion survey would confirm what I would logically expect in the above discussion. Why not? One logical explanation is maybe because Calvinists used to be Arminians prior to converting to Calvinism. So, back in their Arminian past, they had to say homosexuality is a choice. And then, after they became Calvinist, they never came back to re-evaluate their perspective. Either that, or a different explanation is that Calvinists want to give people milk before giving them hard meat. Openly admitting to predestination would be hard meat that many people can't bear. So, in order to give them milk (since the discussion in question is the one with either non-believers or not true believers) they have to pretend to be Arminian and then argue from Arminian viewpoint.

 

[Neogaia777]

The debate as to whether homosexuality is a sin often revolves around the question whether or not its a choice. But this assumes that something has to be a choice in order for it to be a sin -- which is implicitly an Arminian assumption. So its interesting that Calvinists, too, argue that homosexuality is a choice. Why can't Calvinists say that homosexuality isn't a choice since everyone was predestined to either go to heaven or hell from birth, so including homosexuality as a part of this predestination-package won't be any more unfair? Thus, it would make logical sense if Arminians were to say homosexuality is a choice while Calvinists were to say that it isn't.

However, despite the fact that Arminians would logically be more likely to agree with the statement "homosexuality is a choice", Calvinists would logically be more likely to agree with the statement "homosexuality is a sin". Here is why. The reason for arguing that homosexuality is not a sin (despite Bible clearly teaching that it is), is the fact that, based on secular evidence, homosexuality doesn't seem to be a choice, while sin is a choice. So, again, the underlying assumption here is Arminian: namely, that sin is a choice. So, logically speaking, Calvinist can argue their way out of it by saying "fine, people are born gay, but homosexuality is still a sin, because according to Calvinism every sin is predestined from birth". An Arminian won't be able to argue that way so thats why the Arminian, if faced with a failure of refuting evidence against homosexuality being a choice, would be forced to try to argue that its not a sin.

Combining the two paragraphs above, here is what would happen. An Arminian would, logically, first take "conservative" position and try to argue that homosexuality is a choice. Then, after he fails to make his case, he would, logically, switch to "liberal" side and argue that homosexuality is not a sin. On the other hand, Calvinist would logically be fine simply maintaining a fixed point of view that partly agrees with liberals and partly with conservatives, namely "homosexuality is not a choice but its still a sin, since those people were predestined to sin".

Now, you might notice that in the above I didn't say they "believe" something; I only said "one would logically expect them to believe it" (with the word logically being key word). Because I don't think the actual opinion survey would confirm what I would logically expect in the above discussion. Why not? One logical explanation is maybe because Calvinists used to be Arminians prior to converting to Calvinism. So, back in their Arminian past, they had to say homosexuality is a choice. And then, after they became Calvinist, they never came back to re-evaluate their perspective. Either that, or a different explanation is that Calvinists want to give people milk before giving them hard meat. Openly admitting to predestination would be hard meat that many people can't bear. So, in order to give them milk (since the discussion in question is the one with either non-believers or not true believers) they have to pretend to be Arminian and then argue from Arminian viewpoint.

What bad or evil or wrong God will have something to say about regarding anyone in the judgement, or whether it even was even a sin for them or not, no other human being can know or judge at this point, but will have to wait until it is revealed to us at the very last judgement.

And either way, it is not why anyone goes to one place or the other anyway, but the only purpose of the judgement is to teach us/show us good from bad before going to either place so that God can no longer be questioned and/or doubted about it before going to either place.

The only thing that will be being revealed to us in the judgement is why some were chosen by God, and were considered to be one of the good ones by God, and why some others were not, and are not going to be getting to go to the same place as them, and all the "why's as to why" they were not chosen to be one of the good ones by God, and why both (and this place) were or ever is/are made, etc.

For now, I tell all people that all sin, or what you think about sin, etc, or whether you think something even is a sin or not, etc, can be a risk, etc.

Since none of us knows if we were made to be one of the good ones or bad ones yet, or which side of that we are each individually going to fall on in or by the end of that yet, etc.

God Bless.

 

[DamianWarS]

The debate as to whether homosexuality is a sin often revolves around the question whether or not its a choice. But this assumes that something has to be a choice in order for it to be a sin -- which is implicitly an Arminian assumption. So its interesting that Calvinists, too, argue that homosexuality is a choice. Why can't Calvinists say that homosexuality isn't a choice since everyone was predestined to either go to heaven or hell from birth, so including homosexuality as a part of this predestination-package won't be any more unfair? Thus, it would make logical sense if Arminians were to say homosexuality is a choice while Calvinists were to say that it isn't.

However, despite the fact that Arminians would logically be more likely to agree with the statement "homosexuality is a choice", Calvinists would logically be more likely to agree with the statement "homosexuality is a sin". Here is why. The reason for arguing that homosexuality is not a sin (despite Bible clearly teaching that it is), is the fact that, based on secular evidence, homosexuality doesn't seem to be a choice, while sin is a choice. So, again, the underlying assumption here is Arminian: namely, that sin is a choice. So, logically speaking, Calvinist can argue their way out of it by saying "fine, people are born gay, but homosexuality is still a sin, because according to Calvinism every sin is predestined from birth". An Arminian won't be able to argue that way so thats why the Arminian, if faced with a failure of refuting evidence against homosexuality being a choice, would be forced to try to argue that its not a sin.

Combining the two paragraphs above, here is what would happen. An Arminian would, logically, first take "conservative" position and try to argue that homosexuality is a choice. Then, after he fails to make his case, he would, logically, switch to "liberal" side and argue that homosexuality is not a sin. On the other hand, Calvinist would logically be fine simply maintaining a fixed point of view that partly agrees with liberals and partly with conservatives, namely "homosexuality is not a choice but its still a sin, since those people were predestined to sin".

Now, you might notice that in the above I didn't say they "believe" something; I only said "one would logically expect them to believe it" (with the word logically being key word). Because I don't think the actual opinion survey would confirm what I would logically expect in the above discussion. Why not? One logical explanation is maybe because Calvinists used to be Arminians prior to converting to Calvinism. So, back in their Arminian past, they had to say homosexuality is a choice. And then, after they became Calvinist, they never came back to re-evaluate their perspective. Either that, or a different explanation is that Calvinists want to give people milk before giving them hard meat. Openly admitting to predestination would be hard meat that many people can't bear. So, in order to give them milk (since the discussion in question is the one with either non-believers or not true believers) they have to pretend to be Arminian and then argue from Arminian viewpoint.

Homosexuality as a choice vs you are born with it are both flawed arguments.

Broadly speaking homosexuality is no more of a choice than heterosexuality is. I don't wake up and choose to be attracted to the opposite sex I just am and that's not something I can choose away so why is it any different for someone who is attracted to the same sex?

But we are also not born with sexual preference which is an absurd (and disturbing) notion. I have 2 kids, male 9yrs and female 6yrs, neither one of them shows any sexual preference be it homosexuality or heterosexuality. They are kids and kids are not sexually motivated. Social constructs likes to label non-sexual preferences like the toys you play with or a favorite color, etc.... These constructs also play into environmental factors that can make someone feel out of place.

kids are influenced by these unique environments which can create positive or negative feedbacks when viewing same sex or opposite sex relationships or their own identity of where someone fits in, it also developes what is normalized and what isn't. This all happens before they go through puberty, as they mature physically they begin to translate all those existing environmental factors into attraction. It's a complicated process with many factors involved and should not be reduced to mere choice or being born with it.

In terms of Arminian or Calvinist reactions to homosexuality, choice is in opposition to being born with sexual preference and is not a theological position of choice as an abstract. Although "choice" is a poor word to champion "being born with it" doesn't reflect Calvinist theology as well as it's not about divine influence. "choice" is more of a misnomor to the defence of being born with sexual preference. Instead we should be saying early childhood development of sexuality is about learnt behaviors based on positive and negative environmental factors that can be accelerated and become more cemented in during key developmental stages like puberty as well as mirror social influences.