Soteriology: Calvinism/Arminianism

[jfahler]

After reading the rather well known Discourse on Free Will discussion between Desiderius Erasmus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus) and Martin Luther in last semester's Protestant and Catholic Reformation class, I was curious to see who ascribes to either Calvinism, Arminianism, or neither - mostly focusing on the freedom of the will.

When I first became a Christian, I considered myself a five-point Calvinist (TULIP) that was a little closer to the center than the theology really states. Now, after studying Reformation-era theology and really understanding some of this, I'm moving more towards an anti-TULIP position, however mixed with both sides of the argument.

Perhaps we can get some theological discussion here... just remember though that I'm sort of rusty at my part of it.

[Justawoman]

Can't honestly say that I can tell what I grew up believing in regards to your choices.

I don't remember my church ever getting into whether we were Calvinist or the other. But you have given me something to go read up on so I can come back and reply with something better.

[jfahler]

Here's a link regarding Arminianism:

http://www.wsu.edu/~campbelld/amlit/armin.htm

And one reagarding Calvinism:

http://www.mslick.com/tulip.htm

With one comparing the two:

http://www.crivoice.org/tulip.html

The bottom two aren't scholarly sources, so I'm not sure how fair they'll treat teh subject. Basically, Calvinism is defined within the boundaries of TULIP (see above) and involves a fair amount of reason put into Christian Soteriology on Calvin's part. John Calvin was a lawyer, and tended to think of his newfound Protestant theology as such. If God were to be all seeing, knowing, etc, then surely God had things planned out. Calvin took this one step further and extended this "planning out" into a pre-destination of salvation. While I can affirm this based on not only a rational point of view, but to an extent a theological point of view (as Calvin stressed that salvation is through grace, not acts highly), I personally see it as running into some basic points of Christianity. For example, if this is the case, then why does Jesus order his disciples to spread the Gospel? Why does man have an active part in the Church of God if God has the future completely and methodically planned out? Surely there are Calvinists who are "more Calvinist than Calvin" intended, but Calvin's rejection of the freedom of the will has always bothered me in Christian context.

[Grimey]

I recommend you read some good books on it, not just websites. The best book is the Bible. Read it all the way through for several years, and you will start leaning more towards Calvinism, IMO. After you have read dozens and dozens of stories showing God's sovereignty and then start to read interpretations of those stories in the Psalms and New Testament, you start to learn more about it.

If you want to understand what Calvinism means, read a book by RC Sproul called "Chosen by God." He really answers your questions about the role of evangelism. For a quick answer, look to Paul in Romans 10:14-17. God's method of bringing people to faith is explained there.

Romans 10:14-17
14 How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring glad tidings of good things!"

16 However, they did not all heed the glad tidings; for Isaiah says, " Lord, who has believed our report? " 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
NAS


The "Moody Handbook of Theology" is pretty good if you want a description of the many different theologies out there.

One great thing to remember, IMO, is that this is an in-house debate. In other words, it is a debate among Christians. We'll all know the real answer the these questions when we are in heaven. In the meantime, it is interesting to study, but it should not be a point of division, but of debate.

[Radu]

If our destination was predetermined for us, then there would be no point to life. Billions of people have suffered in this world, and billions more are in despair. People dedicate all of their time and possessions to do God's work, and it would all be for naught.

Now, the Calvinist view is that God is all-knowing and, therefore, nothing we do can surprise him. In that sense, he already knows who will or will-not be worthy at the judgement. I agree with that, 100%, but it doesn't take away our agency. I know the sun is going to rise tomorrow but my knowing that it will rise, does not make it rise. I know that a baby will cry when it's spanked, but nobody makes it cry... it still has agency. Our knowledge of such things is limited (in theory, the sun may not rise, and the baby may not cry), but God's knowledge is perfect and there's no doubt about the outcomes. He is our Father, who knows us better than we know ourselves, but he cannot force us to do anything without hindering his plan for our progression.

We are here to prove ourselves worthy. Bad things happen to good people, because that is how we grow and become better (so long as we pass through the trials, righteously). It is up to us. God is not a partial God, and the grace of Jesus Christ is available to all who seek it. No righteous father would punish one child and reward the other, if neither had made the conscious choices that would deserve it.

So, short answer: I guess I'm Arminianist

[jfahler]

I recommend you read some good books on it, not just websites.

I agree... and I have been. I've been reading primary soruces other than the Bible like Luther, Calvin, etc. Regarding the freedom of the will, I personally really recommend the discourse between Erasmus and Luther. It's almost amusing how Erasmus methodically defends the will through a systematic theological discussion verse by verse... and then Luther (after basically saying how smart/well read Eramus is) states that "...I [Luther] feel great pity for you having defiled your beautiful and skilled manner of speaking with such vile dirt". Luther takes Erasmus' method, throws it out the window, and answers it with logic and the refutation of Erasmus' scripture references.

...anyway...

The best book is the Bible. Read it all the way through for several years, and you will start leaning more towards Calvinism, IMO. After you have read dozens and dozens of stories showing God's sovereignty and then start to read interpretations of those stories in the Psalms and New Testament, you start to learn more about it.

At the same time wouldn't freedom of the will exist according to verses like:

Matt 19:17, Luke 9:23-4, John 14:15, Matt 5:12, Matt 25:35, Matt 7:20, Luke 23:34

One great thing to remember, IMO, is that this is an in-house debate. In other words, it is a debate among Christians. We'll all know the real answer the these questions when we are in heaven. In the meantime, it is interesting to study, but it should not be a point of division, but of debate.

I agree. Entirely too many wars have been fought over this, both theological in nature and by words and power-related in nature and by force.

[Justawoman]

Just reading the comparision of the two on free will I would have to say I lean more towards Arminianism.

For one I believe that no we are not in a state of spiritual helplessness just because of the fall in the garden. God has a blueprint for salvation and repentance. I do believe that our faith is something we bring to our salvation and that it is not something we get from God. How can God give us faith and free will at the same time. Faith, to me, comes about because of the trials we walk through.

But I will say that Calvinism is right in about sinners being blind and deaf to the Word. Just hearing the Word alone will not turn around a seasoned sinner. It does take the Spirit stepping in and shaking up the soul.

I'm still reading guys. I am starting to wonder if you can't be a little of both. Because honestly the church I grew up in sounds like both. This is interesting.

[jamesglewisf]

I hate these debates. Everybody needs to start doing some reading on it before they give their opinions on Calvinism vs. Arminianism. Most people don't even know what they mean and their opinion is based upon a caricature such as their being no point to life if Calvinism is true. Calvinism does not teach that we have no wills. It doesn't even teach that we have no free will. It teaches that we are not autonomous.

I've read that book by Sproul. It is a good one. I've also got books by Luther and Calvin, among others. But like Grimey said, most of all, read your Bible. Read it over and over and over and over. The whole thing. Then make a decision, and then be prepared to change your mind several times over your lifetime while you learn more and consider new things. Then be prepared to find in glory out how much you got wrong.

[jamesglewisf]

We are here to prove ourselves worthy. Bad things happen to good people, because that is how we grow and become better (so long as we pass through the trials, righteously). It is up to us. God is not a partial God, and the grace of Jesus Christ is available to all who seek it. No righteous father would punish one child and reward the other, if neither had made the conscious choices that would deserve it.

So, short answer: I guess I'm Arminianist
Shorter answer. Wrong. We're not here to prove ourselves worthy. Our whole lives proves that we are unworthy. We are here to give glory to God. We are here to prove that his will is perfect, and that we can't even fulfill it without his help. Our whole existence is to bring glory to God, not ourselves.

Maybe you just worded it wrong, but we are not, nor will we ever be able to prove ourselves worthy of anything.

[Grimey]

BTW, Jim, you are ranting against hyper-Calvinism and hyper-Arminianism. Both are just caricatures of the original doctrines. They are both heretical, IMO.

That one link you gave - http://www.crivoice.org/tulip.html - is a horrible explanation of what Calvinism is. It was obviously written by someone who does not like Calvinism. IMO, it is not even intellectually honest about it.

One thing you can't do is say that Calvin invented predestination. Predistination is in the Bible. The debate among Bible-believing Christians is not whether or not predestination is taught in the Bible, but about how predestination works.

Here is a good list of books to read: http://www.equip.org/free/DA180.htm. They take various positions on both sides. A lot of the works already mentioned in this thread are included in the list.

[Grimey]

Listen to what MacArthur said - http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-19-6.htm

I also think a second reason why people get it wrong--and this is true for anything--is because they don’t do the really hard work of studying the Word of God, and you have to drop your presuppositions at some point.

One of the benefits that I had, is I grew up in an environment where my dad was the preacher and it was basically a Baptist kind of environment. And what I learned growing up was sort of a middle ground. In my upbringing, we didn’t like the Calvinists and we didn’t like the Arminians; we sort of had that Baptist middle ground. That’s probably what a lot of you…you grew in the same kind of environment. You didn’t talk about predestination or election--that was kind of a frightening thing and that was for dead Presbyterians, and there were only about 30 of them in the whole city of Los Angeles--at the time, and they were over in a room somewhere contemplating their navel and reading John Calvin. You know, it was very introspective and they were thrilled with their theology, but they were a small little group and we weren’t into that.

I went away to college and essentially I went to two colleges, the roots of which were both Methodist. So, they were steeped in Arminian theology. One was sort of a Revivalist environment, and the other was a more traditional Wesleyan environment, where we read Wiley and Miley and all of that, and we had to imbibe all of this Arminian theology. I got out of that; I went to a seminary that had Presbyterian influences. So, I went from the Arminian kind of side to the Reformed side, and there I was in the middle of this mix and I just decided I’d go to the Bible and find out what the Bible said. I think, in a sense, all of that experience sort of canceled each other out, which was good for me, and I went back to the Word of God and in the Word of God, without all the presuppositions cast in stone, I was able to let the Bible speak. Through the years, the Bible I believe speaks very clearly about what the truth is.

But, I think if people could divest themselves of their presuppositions and if they could be willing to eat a little humble pie and say, “It’s possible that I might be wrong,” and take another hard look at the Word of God, they would come to the right answers. It’s a very simple point to make, and it is this: if two people take two opposing views of something, they cannot both be right. Somebody is wrong. And it’s not us, right? Well, I mean, I don’t say that in a proud way. I just believe that we are where we are because we believe this is true.


That's how everyone should approach it. Dig deep into the Bible and take some humility with you along the way.

[Grimey]

For more reference material:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/calvinism.html
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/arminianism.html
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/about.html

Just FYI - www.monergism.com is definitely a Calvinistic sight.

[Radu]

Shorter answer. Wrong. We're not here to prove ourselves worthy. Our whole lives proves that we are unworthy. We are here to give glory to God. We are here to prove that his will is perfect, and that we can't even fulfill it without his help. Our whole existence is to bring glory to God, not ourselves.

Maybe you just worded it wrong, but we are not, nor will we ever be able to prove ourselves worthy of anything. Maybe I did word it in a way that sounded a bit too extreme. I agree with you that we cannot be worthy of returning to God, on our own. We all sin in life, and are unworthy creatures. That's where God's grace, and the atonement for sins comes in. What I was saying was that we still need to do our part. We need to have faith in Christ, and try to keep his commandments, for Christ's atonement to have full-effect in our lives.

I disagree, though, that our entire purpose is only to praise God. That's a key part of it, of course, since we need to recognize him as our God, and live to give glory to him, but I don't believe that that that's the purpose of life. I believe in something better. I believe that he loves us so much that he wants us to reach our fullest potential, and receive all that he has. That's why he shows so much grace, to help us along the way. We are unworthy of that gift, but through the atonement we can reach the small conditions to become worthy.

Back to Calvinism, I probably don't understand it, fully. I have met some people who hold to the belief that all of our actions (whether good or bad) are predetermined by God, and that we can't do anything for ourselves to make a difference. I don't know if that's true Calvinism (as he intended it), but that seems to make life meaningless. It sounds like we are just living puppets that act to bring glory to God, and nothing else.

[Grimey]

Back to Calvinism, I probably don't understand it, fully. I have met some people who hold to the belief that all of our actions (whether good or bad) are predetermined by God, and that we can't do anything for ourselves to make a difference. I don't know if that's true Calvinism (as he intended it), but that seems to make life meaningless. It sounds like we are just living puppets that act to bring glory to God, and nothing else.
That is at best hyper-Calvinism, not real Calvinism, but it is really mostly heresy. The people you met don't understand Calvinism at all.

[jfahler]

That one link you gave - http://www.crivoice.org/tulip.html - is a horrible explanation of what Calvinism is. It was obviously written by someone who does not like Calvinism. IMO, it is not even intellectually honest about it.

To tell you the truth I didn't read it fully enough. I was just trying to get some ready references as a jumpstart for anyone who didn't know much about it.

My position, as mentioned earlier is kind of muddled... if I ever have the energy/time to clear it up into a post and address the TULIP concept I will.

[Justawoman]

The whole TULIP thing sent me on a search this morning to find out what the heck it stood for. Here is a site that you all can let me know if it is worth reading the info on.

http://www.mslick.com/tulip.htm

It gives a break down of TULIP.

[jfahler]

The whole TULIP thing sent me on a search this morning to find out what the heck it stood for. Here is a site that you all can let me know if it is worth reading the info on.

http://www.mslick.com/tulip.htm

It gives a break down of TULIP.

Yes, Carm.org is a very good site from my experience. You'd probably also find that at:

http://www.carm.org - Christian Apologetic Research Ministries. I haven't had much of a chance to read through it, but it is pretty well known with more conservative Christians.

[Radu]

I guess we'll all just have to keep doing research, then, until we can come up with a standard definition for each. :p

Sorry if my posts were against an entirely different belief.

[jfahler]

So... in doing my research on the supposed Arminians that I was studying I've come to the conclusion that they're Calvinists after all.

And then... I realized that the entire controvery is entirely too confusing. Good thing my honors thesis advisor is a minister, philosophy professor, and a theologian.

But here's the catch... there seems to be talk from the earlier mentioned folks about a "Second Generation" - if I worded that right (I'll correct it later... it's late). They believe that by being perfect you can almost "secure" a "second" salvation... sort of. But they claim themselves to be Calvinists. Things are getting tricky, and I see why James hates the discussion in the first place.

[dreuby]

I couldn't remember what soteriology was - my dictionary says "The branch of Christian theology that deals with salvation as the effect of a divine agency" - but don't all Christians believe that? That you can only be saved through Christ, not through good works, Bible reading, etc?

[Justawoman]

Good question dre. I honestly don't know. I have always assumed most sects of christianity had the same views as my foundation in faith. I am slowly realizing that is not so.

[Grimey]

But here's the catch... there seems to be talk from the earlier mentioned folks about a "Second Generation" - if I worded that right (I'll correct it later... it's late). They believe that by being perfect you can almost "secure" a "second" salvation... sort of. But they claim themselves to be Calvinists. Things are getting tricky, and I see why James hates the discussion in the first place.
It doesn't matter what they say, they aren't true Calvinists.

[Grimey]

I couldn't remember what soteriology was - my dictionary says "The branch of Christian theology that deals with salvation as the effect of a divine agency" - but don't all Christians believe that? That you can only be saved through Christ, not through good works, Bible reading, etc?

It isn't a branch of Christianity, it is a doctrine, branch or study of Systematic Theology. Here are some other doctrines:

Theology Proper: the Doctrine of God
Christology: The Doctrine of the Lord Jesus Christ
Pneumatology: The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit
Angelogy: The Doctrine of Angels, Demons, and Satan
Satanology: The Doctrine of Satan
Bibliology: The Doctrine of Scripture
Anthropology: The Doctrine of Man
Hamartiology: The doctrine of Sin
Soteriology: The Doctrine of Salvation
Ecclesiology: The Doctrine of the Church
Eschatology: The Doctrine of Future Things

I can't remember the rest off of the top of my head, but there are many different topics in Theology. Each of denomination within Christianity has different views on at least some of the different topics of theology.