Calvin vs. Arminius

[Guest Biblicist]

When I was growing up I believed in "free will". I was taught that Calvinism was wrong. Of course, my father was not saved so it was easier for me to believe that my FATHER could choose Christ or reject him instead of Christ having that control. We were also taught that Calvinists didn't believe in the great commission. Which, of course, is not true.

Then I began to read the Bible for myself. I started listening to wise council, and praying about what I was learning. Now I realize that God put us in my father's life to guide him down the path toward the ultimate goal of his redemption in Christ. Every time I read the Bible God clearly shows me that He is in complete control of the path of those who come to a knowledge of Him.

Proverbs 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.

Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.

I am constantly learning about the depths of his Grace and Mercy, even for those that will never know him.

Sometimes there are doctrines that make you put down God's word and say, Woah! Hold on, wait a minute! But then you take into context the personality of God and realize that it's ALL for His Glory. Believing that God chooses those who will know him is not an easy doctrine to accept. But to me it is as plain as the nose on my face. Just because I have trouble believing it or accepting it that does not make it any less true.

Something I read/listened to that helped me understand Man's "free will" better was the session from bible.org about free will. http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3293

Choosing God over choosing to do right and wrong are two different things. If you are blind you can not choose to see. Like Lazarus, if you are dead, you can not choose to be alive. [Lazarus was not only dead, he had already moved on to Heaven, who'd want to come back after that?] If God wants to make you see, or bring you back from the dead, he's not going to give you the choice. He's just going to do it.

Exodus 4:11 The LORD said to him, "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD ?

Mark 10:48 Many rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, "Son of David, have mercy on me!" 49 Jesus stopped and said, "Call him." So they called to the blind man, "Cheer up! On your feet! He's calling you." 50 Throwing his cloak aside, he jumped to his feet and came to Jesus.

John 9:39 Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind."

John 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with [their] eyes, nor understand with [their] heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Bib

[jamie]

Well, Biblicist, I will close in saying that to believe in calvinism is to throw out context, and many scriptures that point to free will.

I believe calvinism is a man made doctrine which has to be taught by man in order to be grasped.

This isn't personal in any way, just my opinion on calvinism. In fact all "isms" are usually slanted in some way away from scripture, or there would be no need in calling it an "ism".

I will continue in...

[Guest Biblicist]

Well, Biblicist, I will close in saying that to believe in Calvinism is to throw out context, and many scriptures that point to free will.

I believe Calvinism is a man made doctrine which has to be taught by man in order to be grasped.

This isn't personal in any way, just my opinion on Calvinism. In fact all "isms" are usually slanted in some way away from scripture, or there would be no need in calling it an "ism".

I will continue in...

"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12, KJV).

If I couldn't fall by an act of will, there would be no need to "work out" my salvation by an act of will either.

I can see where this could easily go into OSAS.

Anyway, I must continue on in what makes logical simplistic sense and speaks to my heart.

Bless you

I don't believe in Calvinism either, nor did I say that I did. . . I believe in the Bible. That's why I call myself Biblicist, not Calvinist. And you are correct in saying that man made orders tend to be slanted. But The Bible is always right, and the whole of scripture is our context. That we can agree on.

I, too, continue to work out my salvation with fear and trembling on a daily basis. As do all of the redeemed. But if you read this in context you will see that it is referring to the beloved, those that have already been "called according to his purpose". It is not addressed to those who have not been redeemed. Salvation is not just something you have, it's something you do. That is what it means when it says, work out your salvation . . Philippians 2:12 is not the end of the sentence, continue on to the next verse you will see.13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

Don't be afraid to study and learn further. Like the Bereans, study to see if what you are being taught [the things I have said] measure up to the Word of God, not just a feeling in your heart. Acts 17:11

Bib

Ephesians 4:1 I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, 2 with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, 3 endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

[PBob]

For those who are not familiar with the debate or the acronyms, here is a brief summation of both.

Jacobus Arminius was a Professor of Divinity at Leyden University in Holland at the turn of the seventeenth century. He was the protege of Theodore Beza, who was John Calvin's successor. Arminius was a strict Calvinist early on, but later he developed a set of doctrines that were divergient from the widely accepted doctrines of Calvinism. Arminius's teachings concerning sin, selection, predestination, and eternal security attracted a following. Some time after his death in 1609 some of his followers consolidated his teachings into 5 concise points (Later identified by the acronym DAISY) and presented them in a formal letter of Remonstrance (or objection) to the Reformed Church of Holland in 1618. The Church conducted a formal inquiry into the claims of the Arminians, and thus, the Synod of Dort was formed. In 1619 the Arminians got their answers in the form of an article known as The Canons of the Synod of Dort. The synod answered each of the five points presented by the Arminians with five contrary points that we now call "The Five Points of Calvinism," otherwise known by the acronym TULIP. Thus, the Synod of Dort absolutely rejected Arminianism as heretical, and confirmed Calvinism as the true doctrine of Christ's church........

So......where do you stand?

Endnote: The texts of TULIP and DAISY were cut-and-pasted from http://www.lifegoeson.net/InTruth/calvarmn.htm Credit where credit is due.

I believe that whatever I believe, debate, discuss, write commentaries on, etc..will only be as accurate as my hearing the Holy Spirit reveal to me His truth. Bottom line - Whatever, God does will be just and right. I personally believe in PANCalvinism and PANArminianism and PANTribulation..... It will all PAN out in the end.

Our God sits in the heavens and does whatever HE pleases (Ps115:3) (and if the commentaries don't agree - it really makes no difference). "Because if you confess the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved." (Rom 10:9) Gosh that sounds to simple. Is there any noise inthe woods when a tree falls and no one is there to hear it?????

Let's stop majoring on the minors. Forgive me - not meant to be mean it's just that all these issues take away from the real calling of the Body of Christ and lead to more and more division. Let's get on with the GREAT COMMISSION.

What if the Bible is true?

[Sherman]

Hello everyone,

I haven't taken time to read everyone's replys to this, but the few that I did sounded pretty passionate - wonderful! Several years ago in seminary (not cemetary) this was a heated discussion. We ended up drawing the two arguments like:

Calvanism = ForeOrdination -----> Salvation -----> Choice

Arminianism = ForeKnowledge -----> Choice -----> Salvation

After a few days of discussion and prayerfully considering this topic, I woke up one morning with a new-to-me understanding.

First let me point out that there is substantial biblical evidence to support both arguments, as I'm sure you've seen. The problem is we exist in Time, whereas God exists in, out-of, and beyond Time. So rather than thinking linear, we need to think non-linear. I awoke with this simple illustration. And please pardon the rudimentary graphics and dots, but I think you get the idea.

..................................JESUS,

............................in Him is both

...........................ForeOrdination &

...........................ForeKnowledge

....................../\.........................../\

...................../................................\

.................../....................................\

................./........................................\

................\/........................................\/

.......Man's Choice <---------------> Man's Salvation

Salvation is like electricity flowing over a wire. It flows both ways at the same time. I don't understand how that is possible, but I know that when I turn the light switch on, I get light. In the same way, when I received Jesus as my Savior and Lord, when I put my faith in Him, the lights came on to a whole new world! Hallelujah!

Our problem is that we are temporal, and God is eternal. How do you describe Green to a man who has been blind all of his life? It's impossible! In the same way many things are impossible for us to understand! That's why we must have faith in God.

By the way, I'm not 50/50 on this, I'm 100/100 on this issue, but that was not one of the options, so I selected 50/50.

In His service and yours,

Edited January 23, 2007 by Sherman

[jamie]

Again, I think marriage between a man and a women is the best example.

You go through a courtship where you fall deeply in love, and nothing can make you turn and walk away from what you've found. Nobody has to 'force' you to love this great thing you've found. (This is grace, you did nothing to deserve this)

But if you don't keep maintaining and perservering in this relationship it can grow cold down the road; then you can become totally distracted and pulled away by other things, and fall away.

The next thing you know you have divorced your first love.

[EricH]

When it comes to this debate, it would seem to me that the only options that make any sense at all is to go 100 percent Daisy or 100 percent Tulip. You would either have to be a complete follower of the doctrine of Calvin or Arminius. The options that are in between don't add up when it comes to the teachings in the Bible.

This is a good statement. One of the requirements for any theological system in addition to being biblical is that it be internally consistent. If one attempts to mix Calvinism with Arminianism, the internaql consistency of the system begins to break down

[Ovedya]

I have edited this thread.

If posters here cannot be charitable or at least decent to one another, it's perhaps best if they move on to other subjects.

Personally, I despise having to edit posts. Please don't force me to do it again.

Grace to you,

Ovedya

[Guest Biblicist]

When it comes to this debate, it would seem to me that the only options that make any sense at all is to go 100 percent Daisy or 100 percent Tulip. You would either have to be a complete follower of the doctrine of Calvin or Arminius. The options that are in between don't add up when it comes to the teachings in the Bible.

This is a good statement. One of the requirements for any theological system in addition to being biblical is that it be internally consistent. If one attempts to mix Calvinism with Arminianism, the internaql consistency of the system begins to break down

I find this an interesting statement. So you are saying that either one is correct, not both. That it has to be one or the other, one can not accept some truth's from each?

For those of us who are trying to learn The Truth, how would we know the one we are believing is the actual Truth? I don't want to follow the teachings of just one man. Neither one can be 100% right! I am not a follower of Calvin or a follower of Arminius, I am a follower of Christ!

So please explain. Isn't it possible that they both went to extremes and there is some middle ground that neither was willing to accept?

[Vickilynn]

When it comes to this debate, it would seem to me that the only options that make any sense at all is to go 100 percent Daisy or 100 percent Tulip. You would either have to be a complete follower of the doctrine of Calvin or Arminius. The options that are in between don't add up when it comes to the teachings in the Bible.

This is a good statement. One of the requirements for any theological system in addition to being biblical is that it be internally consistent. If one attempts to mix Calvinism with Arminianism, the internaql consistency of the system begins to break down

I find this an interesting statement. So you are saying that either one is correct, not both. That it has to be one or the other, one can not accept some truth's from each?

For those of us who are trying to learn The Truth, how would we know the one we are believing is the actual Truth? I don't want to follow the teachings of just one man. Neither one can be 100% right! I am not a follower of Calvin or a follower of Arminius, I am a follower of Christ!

So please explain. Isn't it possible that they both went to extremes and there is some middle ground that neither was willing to accept?

Shalom,

This is right on!

We are not followers of men, or men's ideas, we are followers of Messiah and we live by the Bible, not TULIPS or DAISEYs.

I voted that I am neither. I have heard it said that you are one or the other, and that if you are not a Calvinist, you are automatically an Arminian. However, this is not the truth.

I despise these types of divisions within the Body as they focus too much on man's ways and not enough on G-d's.