Why not both/and?

[TaylorSexton]

Greetings, my fellow believers.

It has been a while since I have ventured on to this forum. I have missed a lot. I just wanted to post a quick question to maybe get some discussion going on the subject:

In reading several discussions, debates and articles on certain heated topics within the discussions between Arminians and Calvinists, I always asked the question, "Why not both/and?"

For example, when discussing divine providence and human responsibility (easily one of the biggest points of contention between the two positions), people seem to pit one completely over and against and to the complete exclusion of the other. What I see in Scripture is that God has absolute sovereignty in all things and, at the same time, humans are utterly responsible for everything they do or do not do.

Basically, I am just wondering if anyone else here is weary of all the proof-texting and not striving to consult the entire counsel of God on matters like these.

Thanks and blessings to you all!

 

[JM]

Scripture doesn’t allow for both full blown Calvinism and Arminianism to exist together. We find extremes within both views but Calvinism doesn't disallow the guilt or responsibility of sinful man. We are sinners by nature and sinners by choice. To allow for both you are actually reconciling both positions philosophically and not biblically. The position is often called Amyraldism, Amyraldianism or Hypo-Calvinism. What seems to make sense philosophically causes damage to other biblical doctrines in the same manner Arminianism does.

http://triablogue.blogspot.ca/2009/03/hypo-calvinism.html

Amyraldianism

 

[BryanW92]

I tend to be a both/and person since I have been Arminian in the past and am Calvinist now. Obviously, the extremes of both theologies cannot both be right, but there is some middle ground and I think it comes down to "what comes first, faith or grace". The Arminian says that you need to create your own faith to gain justifying grace. The Calvinist says that you need regeneration to have believing faith. Of course, there is prevenient grace on the Wesleyan side to give you the necessary grace to have enough faith to make the free will choice to accept justifying grace.

I don't see any actual battles between the Methodists and Presbyterians (at least in my town), so the disagreement really becomes an "iron sharpens iron" sort of thing. The concept of "let's agree to disagree" means that neither side ever has to go to the trouble to defend their beliefs, so that is like "clay sharpens clay", which makes for a pretty dull knife--which is what is actually wrong with modern western Christianity.

 

[AMR]

Arminianism and Calvinism are immiscible. Attempting to combine them into something that mixes the two views has no Biblical warrant. Rather we should pray for our confused Arminian brethren that they someday come to a more complete understanding of the doctrines of grace. Until that time they continue to deny themselves the full measure of grace possible from such an understanding.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Thank you all for your responses.

I think some of you are misunderstanding what I am asking. I am not saying that we should "mix Calvinism and Arminianism". Of course that has no biblical warrant. I am concerned about individual topics of discussion between the camps (such as divine sovereignty/human responsibility). Honest, biblically-faithful Reformed people would never deny human responsibility in light of God's absolute sovereignty. However, I have run into a several that–in an honest interest to refute Arminianism–deny such things. That is what I am weary of. It happens on both sides. The Arminian emphasizes human freedom, to the exclusion of God's sovereignty, and quotes a few verses. The Calvinist emphasizes God's sovereignty, to the exclusion of human responsibility, and quotes a few verses. Both are in error, I believe. What I would love to see is Calvinists (such a myself) engaging Arminians armed with the whole counsel of God on such matters.

I understand that the title of this thread can be misleading. Please understand I am, again, not saying that we settle for a unbiblical mixture. Just wanted some thoughts.

Thanks, everyone!

 

[hedrick]

Classical Reformed theology does in fact teach both divine sovereignty and human responsibility. It’s called compatibilism. Reformed theology doesn’t say that God compels people to do things. It says that he is responsible for history, including the things that lead people to develop to be what they are. Thus people do what their character and motivation leads them to do, but God is still in control.

 

[drjean]

The reason we have different religions is so people may come together and worship God along with those who believe the same way.

Now if the discussion was "simply" about the 5 tenets of faith that "all" believers have in common, that would be okay with me.

 

[JM]

The Calvinist emphasizes God's sovereignty, to the exclusion of human responsibility, and quotes a few verses.

This is not Calvinism or Reformed Christianity but pagan fatalism.

 

[JM]

Every intelligent being knows that in committing sin, he acts voluntarily, and follows the impulse of his own depraved nature, and every one who is born of God and taught by His Spirit, knows that sin is the opposite of holiness; that God is holy, and that sin is of the devil and man’s lust, and not of God. Still a consciousness of God’s supreme power and wisdom, to fix its bounds, and say to it as He has said to the waters of the deep, “Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further; and here shall thy proud waves be stayed,” affords a strong consolation to all who look alone to God for succor, protection and support, while destined to remain as strangers and pilgrims on the earth. - Gilbert Beebe

 

[BryanW92]

Both are in error, I believe.

Then, what do you believe?

 

[JM]

Taylor, maybe these short posts will help.

https://feileadhmor.wordpress.com/tag/is-calvinism-biblical/

 

[Radagast]

when discussing divine providence and human responsibility (easily one of the biggest points of contention between the two positions), people seem to pit one completely over and against and to the complete exclusion of the other. What I see in Scripture is that God has absolute sovereignty in all things and, at the same time, humans are utterly responsible for everything they do or do not do.

I don't think you understand Calvinism. Calvinists do accept both divine providence and human responsibility.

 

[AMR]

Then, what do you {TaylorSexton} believe?

Good question.

 

[lesliedellow]

What I see in Scripture is that God has absolute sovereignty in all things and, at the same time, humans are utterly responsible for everything they do or do not do.

No argument there, and I cannot imagine any Calvinist arguing with it. Arminians are another matter.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

In reading several discussions, debates and articles on certain heated topics within the discussions between Arminians and Calvinists, I always asked the question, "Why not both/and?"

I played around with the same idea before committing to Calvinism. History is your friend concerning this, history, primary sources and the kind of clear thinking that comes from God almighty.

For example, when discussing divine providence and human responsibility (easily one of the biggest points of contention between the two positions), people seem to pit one completely over and against and to the complete exclusion of the other. What I see in Scripture is that God has absolute sovereignty in all things and, at the same time, humans are utterly responsible for everything they do or do not do.

hedrick did a good job answering this part. A couple of primary sources include works by John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards. I also recommend reading some Reformed confessions carefully for yourself, start with the Westminster Confession. What you may discover might be surprising in a good way.

Basically, I am just wondering if anyone else here is weary of all the proof-texting and not striving to consult the entire counsel of God on matters like these.

I cannot speak for Calvinists other than myself when I say that proof texting had little to do with me converting to Calvinism. Say what? Let me explain, I came from a very committed Arminian position. I could point to a slew of proof-texts for my positions (though I did so in error not knowing or understanding). I understood when I committed to Reformed Soteriology that everyone has their proof texts, and I understood it did not include giving up Sola Scripture, or the authority of God involved in interpretation of said proof texts, while at the same time heeding or acknowledging secondary or lesser authority of historical interpretation, recognizing that no man is an island of interpretation concerning the Scriptures.

Now I must also confess, that my turning to Calvinism involved a great deal many things, including my experiences, but perhaps the strongest reason involved apologetics, a need to account for certainty or absolutes, the complete failure of Arminian apologetics, and an old Presbyterian minister who passed away in 1985, who taught Apologetics and Philosophy at Westminster Theological Seminary for forty years. I am referring to the late Dr. Cornelius Van Til. Yes God fed me heaping of heaping of humble pie, and though I hesitated, grumbled, complained, He kept feeding me to the point I came to love and enjoy it, even appreciate the mighty works of His sovereign hands.