Discussion Calvinian Vs Arminianist

[mcgyver]

Good Morning all!

First, this is not a "drive by" post...but R/L is intruding (gasp) on my internet time , so I'll post as much as the Lord allows...

I've got a question that I'd like to throw out for discussion:

Seems that the vast majority of Christians either define themselves as Calvinistic or Arminian in their views...

Outside of the issue of tongues, the Eternal/Conditional security of the believer seems to be the second largest issue causing division within the body of Christ.

If one is a "Calvinist" then OSAS is the order of the day...If one is "Arminian" then NOSAS is "king".

I have a real problem with both extremes: Ardent Calvinism denies the free-will of man, but yet ardent Arminianism denies the sovereignty of God IMO.

So then, my question is this: Is it not possible that both men were in some points correct, and in other points incorrect? I mean here we have two theologians who are trying to plumb the infinite mind of God with our limited human understanding....so why is it that we seem to want to line up on one side or the other?

Now let me throw out a passage that (to me) seems to both confirm and deny at the same time both Calvinism and Arminianism:

John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out."

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,(God's sovereignty seen here. We know that no one can come to the Son unless the Father draws him: John 6:44)

and the one who comes to Me (Man's free will seen here in the choice given to "come to" i.e. "receive" Christ-- John 1:11-13)

I will by no means cast out.(God's sovereignty seen in securing the one who comes...cross reference with John 6:44)

Now, I'm not a "one verse charlie" by any means but this is illustrative of my point.

So, for both sides of the debate:

Does God's sovereignty trump man's will...(i.e eternal security in causing the saint to "persevere" until the end).

Does man's will trump God's sovereignty...(i.e. the ability for a "True" "born-again" believer to apostate).

And why do you feel that way?

Please keep this nice (as we see where it goes)

[MidnightsPaleGlow]

As somebody who adheres more to Arminianism, I believe in Free Will and NOSAS, I share the shared tenet between both systems of Original Sin (we inherit a sin nature from Adam) and Total Depravity (mankind is naked before God, and our sinfulness seperates us from God). Just as Jesus said nobody could come to him unless the Father draws him (John 6:44), I do believe that we are unable to make our own approaches toward God without divine intervention. However, unlike the Calvinists, who believe that that Grace cannot be resisted, I believe it can (which is where the issue of Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit comes in). Calvinists believe that Christ died only for a select few, chosen for salvation before they were even born, but in 2 Peter 3:9 we see that God wants NONE to perish, but ALL to come to repentance, if somebody becomes a Christian, regardless of who they are, they're part of the elect, so anybody who heeds the Holy Spirit's calling can become part of the elect, but if they blaspheme him, then they will be forever lost and die in their sins. I reject OSAS on the grounds that a believer can lose his salvation through complete apostasy (not temporary apostasy on the grounds of backsliding, backsliders can be restored to full fellowship).

[timmyb]

I believe that God is so sovereign that he allows man to have free will and has no fear of man's actions. He does not need to control man...

If God were less than sovereign he would be afraid to allow man free will

[mcgyver]

As somebody who adheres more to Arminianism, I believe in Free Will and NOSAS, I share the shared tenet between both systems of Original Sin (we inherit a sin nature from Adam) and Total Depravity (mankind is naked before God, and our sinfulness seperates us from God). Just as Jesus said nobody could come to him unless the Father draws him (John 6:44), I do believe that we are unable to make our own approaches toward God without divine intervention. However, unlike the Calvinists, who believe that that Grace cannot be resisted, I believe it can (which is where the issue of Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit comes in). Calvinists believe that Christ died only for a select few, chosen for salvation before they were even born, but in 2 Peter 3:9 we see that God wants NONE to perish, but ALL to come to repentance, if somebody becomes a Christian, regardless of who they are, they're part of the elect, so anybody who heeds the Holy Spirit's calling can become part of the elect, but if they blaspheme him, then they will be forever lost and die in their sins. I reject OSAS on the grounds that a believer can lose his salvation through complete apostasy (not temporary apostasy on the grounds of backsliding, backsliders can be restored to full fellowship).

Thanks for your answer!

If you would, could you expound a little bit on the part of your quote that I bolded...how they can be compatible?

This is where I seem to have a mental "disconnect" if you will....if we are the "Elect" because we are saved, that is to say that if at the moment of salvation we become the "chosen" of God (and all that goes with it...i.e. given an inheritance, born-again new creations, bought by the Blood of Christ, et.al.)

Then in losing that salvation, would not man's free will in essence override God's sovereign will in keeping His purchase (us)?

Not debating, just trying to see how others reconcile this (to me) incongruity...

[mcgyver]

I believe that God is so sovereign that he allows man to have free will and has no fear of man's actions. He does not need to control man...

If God were less than sovereign he would be afraid to allow man free will

Thanks timmyb

Could you expound on that statement a little bit?

What is your opinion on the interrelationship between man's will and God's sovereignty?

[timmyb]

as far as salvation goes.. God did his part in sending his only begotten son, now it's man's turn... that whosoever believes in him... it's our part to choose him as our king and our savior and Lord... and that just as freely as one chose him they can just as freely walk away from God... Jesus warns that the love of many will grow cold and they will be offended... this will be state of much of the church... How does God choose someone then change his mind?

I find it hard to biblically link God choosing someone and not choosing someone else and say it's for his glory... It doesn't fit with the Bible

[mcgyver]

as far as salvation goes.. God did his part in sending his only begotten son, now it's man's turn... that whosoever believes in him... it's our part to choose him as our king and our savior and Lord... and that just as freely as one chose him they can just as freely walk away from God... Jesus warns that the love of many will grow cold and they will be offended... this will be state of much of the church... How does God choose someone then change his mind?

I find it hard to biblically link God choosing someone and not choosing someone else and say it's for his glory... It doesn't fit with the Bible

Thanks again timmyb

I agree fully with the first part of your statement: "God did his part in sending his only begotten son, now it's man's turn... that whosoever believes in him... it's our part to choose him as our king and our savior and Lord..."

In doing so, would you not agree that we then become the elect? That we then become the chosen of God (for that is the basic definition for "elect")?

If that is so...then you've in essence asked the exact question that I find hard to reconcile: "How does God choose someone then change his mind?"

How do you reconcile these one to the other?

Once again, not trying to debate, just understand the point of view

[ARCHER42]

May I ask you.. was John Calvin 'crucified' for you or was J. Arminius 'crucified' for you..

One says.. I follow Calvin. another I follow J. Arminius...


Were you 'baptized' in the name of John Calvin.. or J. Arminius..


Do you follow Calvin or Arminius or do you follow the God of the Bible.. the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. One must pose himself this question...

[mcgyver]

May I ask you.. was John Calvin 'crucified' for you or was J. Arminius 'crucified' for you..

One says.. I follow Calvin. another I follow J. Arminius...


Were you 'baptized' in the name of John Calvin.. or J. Arminius..


Do you follow Calvin or Arminius or do you follow the God of the Bible.. the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. One must pose himself this question...

This is part of the reason (though not the whole of it) that I started this thread...

To answer your question: In some things I lean toward the Arminian viewpoint (or explanation), in others the Calvinistic viewpoint (or explanation)....

In ALL things I seek to follow Christ.

Therefore I do not wish to be classified as being fully in either theological "camp"...yet I think that the views and incongruities found in both Calvinism and Arminianism are worthy of discussion; if for no other reason than so many Christians do identify themselves as one or the other.

Are we not admonished to "test all things, hold fast what is good"? 1 Thes 5:17

[ARCHER42]

I understand where your coming from.. There is nothing wrong in discussing the different views.. the Danger comes in putting all of our faith and trust in these 'views'... or 'interpretations'. Whether it be one or the other.. Letting one view or another 'become your God'..... thats dangerous .. There needs to be balance..... if there is no balance then one spends all his/her time defending a 'view' instead of Defending Truth and the Simplicity of the Gospel.

But then we're in a time when many will say.... even those professing Christ.. 'what is Truth'?....... Narrow is the way that leads to Eternal Life... Broad is the path to destruction.... One needs to keep their Eyes on Jesus the Christ and what He has accomplished for His children.....the rest will come into place.. in its correct time and place.

[timmyb]

Thanks again timmyb

I agree fully with the first part of your statement: "God did his part in sending his only begotten son, now it's man's turn... that whosoever believes in him... it's our part to choose him as our king and our savior and Lord..."

In doing so, would you not agree that we then become the elect? That we then become the chosen of God (for that is the basic definition for "elect")?

If that is so...then you've in essence asked the exact question that I find hard to reconcile: "How does God choose someone then change his mind?"

How do you reconcile these one to the other?

Once again, not trying to debate, just understand the point of view

when a believer chooses Christ he becomes predestined for heaven elect according to the foreknowledge of Christ... his foreknowledge doesn't cancel out man's freewill nor does man's free will cancel out his sovereignty... Tozer has the best theology concerning God's sovereignty that I have ever heard

[BrckBrln]

as far as salvation goes.. God did his part in sending his only begotten son, now it's man's turn... that whosoever believes in him... it's our part to choose him as our king and our savior and Lord.

So in theory, nobody could ever have been saved? I mean, if God has already done His part and the rest, the final say in Salvation, is left up to man, then in theory, if all the man decided not to choose Christ, then nobody would have been saved. So Jesus went to the cross knowing that, in theory, it was possible for nobody to come to Him and therefore His dying was in vain?

Calvinism sees the Atonement as a perfect one.

[RogerW]

Good Morning all!

First, this is not a "drive by" post...but R/L is intruding (gasp) on my internet time , so I'll post as much as the Lord allows...

Greetings Mcgyver,

What is R/L?

I've got a question that I'd like to throw out for discussion:

Seems that the vast majority of Christians either define themselves as Calvinistic or Arminian in their views...

I define myself as a Christian following the doctrine of the Bible. But, I will admit that I do find Calvinistic doctrine faithful to the Sovereign Grace of God, and I also find Arminian doctrine faithful to the sovereignty of man above God, because it teaches that God cannot fulfill whatever He wills without the aid of fallen man.

Outside of the issue of tongues, the Eternal/Conditional security of the believer seems to be the second largest issue causing division within the body of Christ.

If one is a "Calvinist" then OSAS is the order of the day...If one is "Arminian" then NOSAS is "king".

I realize there are extremes in every camp, however if you spoke of the doctrines of Calvin, as he taught them, you will find John Calvin teaches perseverance of the saints. I stopped using the term OSAS when I realized that it implies there is no responsibility on the part of man. But Scripture surely teaches us that once man has become born again, he will most certainly work out his/her salvation with fear and trembling....why? because it is God working in him to both will and do of His good pleasure. So, just because God is in them, guiding them and teaching them, does this mean there is no responsibility on the part of man? No at all, very clearly it will be manifest through good works that a man has been born again. The fruit of the Spirit will be known.

I have a real problem with both extremes: Ardent Calvinism denies the free-will of man, but yet ardent Arminianism denies the sovereignty of God IMO.

I don't know what you mean by "ardent Calvinism" but the Bible teaches us that man's will is bound to his/her nature. As long as man remains in unbelief, then in his natural, fallen will he/she cannot come to God for salvation. It is only when the natural man receives a new nature, new will, a supernatural act of the Holy Spirit, giving him/her life, that he/she is able to choose the will of God.

So then, my question is this: Is it not possible that both men were in some points correct, and in other points incorrect? I mean here we have two theologians who are trying to plumb the infinite mind of God with our limited human understanding....so why is it that we seem to want to line up on one side or the other?

Since the Arminian view begins with the wrong foundation, everything that follows has been built upon an erroneous foundation, how then can anything built upon the wrong foundation become sound biblical doctrine? I'm not interested in being right or wrong, I desire biblical truth. Frankly I find Scripture always affirms the sovereignty of God over man, and never affirms that man's will can supercede the will of Almighty God.

Now let me throw out a passage that (to me) seems to both confirm and deny at the same time both Calvinism and Arminianism:

John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out."

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,(God's sovereignty seen here. We know that no one can come to the Son unless the Father draws him: John 6:44)

Agree.

and the one who comes to Me (Man's free will seen here in the choice given to "come to" i.e. "receive" Christ-- John 1:11-13)

Man's free will? But didn't you just say that no man can come to the Son unless the Father draw him? If the Father is drawing one to come to the Son, how can this be said is man's free will choice to come?

I will by no means cast out.(God's sovereignty seen in securing the one who comes...cross reference with John 6:44)

Absolutely agree. So we find God sovereignly drawing, and sovereignly keeping. All of God, none of fallen man's free will.

So, for both sides of the debate:

Does God's sovereignty trump man's will...(i.e eternal security in causing the saint to "persevere" until the end).

If Sovereign God does not make man willing by changing his/her natural, fallen will, then no man will come to Him for salvation, and no man can persevere unless the Lord keeps them (Ph 1:6).

Does man's will trump God's sovereignty...(i.e. the ability for a "True" "born-again" believer to apostate).

You've already shown the problem with this thinking, "How does God choose someone then change his mind?"

And why do you feel that way?

Please keep this nice (as we see where it goes)

If God is not Sovereign in the affairs of fallen man, then heaven will be without any human. Man cannot save themselves, and man cannot keep themselves saved without the intervention of the Lord of all grace and mercy.

Many Blessings,
RW

[ARCHER42]

So in theory, nobody could ever have been saved? I mean, if God has already done His part and the rest, the final say in Salvation, is left up to man, then in theory, if all the man decided not to choose Christ, then nobody would have been saved. So Jesus went to the cross knowing that, in theory, it was possible for nobody to come to Him and therefore His dying was in vain?

Calvinism sees the Atonement as a perfect one.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with this statement...

[ARCHER42]

There were 2 thieves crucified with Jesus

The one who believed and was saved ... did he 'will' himself up that Crucifix....... so that he could be saved?

No, by the Foreknowledge of God he was there... This in turn shows the Providence and Soveriegnty of God and that He is able to Save based on What He does and not man's 'willing' themselves to God to be saved...

And what happened to the other theif?