Calvin vs. Arminius

[Rhonda Lou]

rca,

I thank you for your response. I just want to clear one thing up. I never meant that you should not write anymore, just that my mind is not goting to change, and your mind is not going to change, so my spending hourse writing you when I could be responding to other questions, or trying to respond to unbelievers, or writing inmate letters, or whatever seems a waste of time for me. I would never want to tell another person what they can and cannot do. On the issue of the Prodigal Son, I've stated what I believed. I read in your last paragraph that you do not believe in paradoxes in the Bible. Although I do not understand how Jesus can be fully God and fully Man while on earth, I believe the Bible teaches that He is. Although I do not understand how Jesus can be in heaven sitting at the right hand of God, and making intercession for us, and yet be in us (Romans 8:34; John 14:23; Colossians 1:27), and yet He is. I explained the point of the parable of the Prodigal Son as I saw it. I also pointed out all of the other verses which state that those dead in their sins don't seek God, and must therefore be saved by God. A look over all that I have written indicates that I totally believe in predestination; and that I totally believe in free will. I simply do not believe that our will is taken into account when God chooses us, but I have repeatedly stated that it is necessary that we repent and believe. I was simply stating that as there was nothing more I could add, I'd like to leave the conversation, but you are welcome to continue writing.

Rhonda Lou

I want to thank you for all what you have written in response to me. I agree that it has taken very much time. Looking back it was more time than I wanted to spend on this. Yet if it was not for you it would have seemed like talking to the wall. I got to see how the other side thinks. I got to see which passages they like to use. I have discovered new insight into some passages while trying to explain my position. And at times I searched the internet to see how other like minded people explained certain passages. Through that I also have learned new things. I do plan to at some point write down all my beliefs in a blog as well.

I appreciate the time you did spend on debating me. I respect your beliefs and have no intention on trying to change them. Thank you. I wish you God's blessing in the new year.

rca

rca,

Thank you for your gracious reply. I wish you well, and God's peace.

Rhonda

[JCISGD]

How about a neither postion?

Such as a Finneyist position, seeing that God used him to usher in unparralled revivals accoss America and even in the Uk. The Welsh revival has been attributed to prayer and 80,000 Finney tracts being distributed.

Would God so mightily use a man and thereby sanction his theology if it was error?

Actually i would drop the name of Finney altogether if it were not wrong to deny credit where credit is due, and i feel sure Finney himself would not want his name used for division or adulation seperate from the acknowledgement of the supreme work of the Holy Spirit.

Finney took issue with both camps to some degree as far as im aware, but reguardless the fruits of his theology are evident in the numbers of converts, their perserverance in the faith and the very high % that stayed true and holy to the end in contrast with both Arminius and Calvin.

I am staggered that Christians on the whole seem unwilling to be humble and learn from proven men of God, and would rather stick to entrenched positions at all costs.

[rca]

How about a neither postion?

Such as a Finneyist position, seeing that God used him to usher in unparralled revivals accoss America and even in the Uk. The Welsh revival has been attributed to prayer and 80,000 Finney tracts being distributed.

Would God so mightily use a man and thereby sanction his theology if it was error?

Actually i would drop the name of Finney altogether if it were not wrong to deny credit where credit is due, and i feel sure Finney himself would not want his name used for division or adulation seperate from the acknowledgement of the supreme work of the Holy Spirit.

Finney took issue with both camps to some degree as far as im aware, but reguardless the fruits of his theology are evident in the numbers of converts, their perserverance in the faith and the very high % that stayed true and holy to the end in contrast with both Arminius and Calvin.

I am staggered that Christians on the whole seem unwilling to be humble and learn from proven men of God, and would rather stick to entrenched positions at all costs.

I cannot see what a neither position would be. Finley had a theology like any other preacher. His systematic theology is 1013 pages. You can find it at http://www.firesofrevival.com/st1851.pdf

His theology is certainly on the Arminian side even going beyond that to Pelagianism.

As far as his converts go, the best way to measure that is to look at the converts sometime after their conversion. For the parable of the soils (Matthew 13) makes it clear that a true believer will endure the test of time. From what I have found on the internet, I cannot find any documented evidence of this. In fact it seems to be the opposite. See http://www.the-highway.com/articleApr99.html for example. See also http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm

I realize these are Calvinists websites. The Arminianism website did not support him either and had a link to the latter website mentioned above.

Finney was a Pelagian. I am a Arminianist which is Semi Pelagian. Finney was too man centred.

My favorite preacher was John Wesley. He was a Arminianist and led a revival with lasting effect.

[Ovedya]

I'm just a lover of Jesus!

[JCISGD]

How about a neither postion?

Such as a Finneyist position, seeing that God used him to usher in unparralled revivals accoss America and even in the Uk. The Welsh revival has been attributed to prayer and 80,000 Finney tracts being distributed.

Would God so mightily use a man and thereby sanction his theology if it was error?

Actually i would drop the name of Finney altogether if it were not wrong to deny credit where credit is due, and i feel sure Finney himself would not want his name used for division or adulation seperate from the acknowledgement of the supreme work of the Holy Spirit.

Finney took issue with both camps to some degree as far as im aware, but reguardless the fruits of his theology are evident in the numbers of converts, their perserverance in the faith and the very high % that stayed true and holy to the end in contrast with both Arminius and Calvin.

I am staggered that Christians on the whole seem unwilling to be humble and learn from proven men of God, and would rather stick to entrenched positions at all costs.

I cannot see what a neither position would be. Finley had a theology like any other preacher. His systematic theology is 1013 pages. You can find it at http://www.firesofrevival.com/st1851.pdf

His theology is certainly on the Arminian side even going beyond that to Pelagianism.

As far as his converts go, the best way to measure that is to look at the converts sometime after their conversion. For the parable of the soils (Matthew 13) makes it clear that a true believer will endure the test of time. From what I have found on the internet, I cannot find any documented evidence of this. In fact it seems to be the opposite. See http://www.the-highway.com/articleApr99.html for example. See also http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm

I realize these are Calvinists websites. The Arminianism website did not support him either and had a link to the latter website mentioned above.

Finney was a Pelagian. I am a Arminianist which is Semi Pelagian. Finney was too man centred.

My favorite preacher was John Wesley. He was a Arminianist and led a revival with lasting effect.

Wesley was great too, but did was not used by God in mighty revivals such as Finney. Finney was not Pelagain and refuted this and its teaching, he also recommended Wesleys book on Christian perfection, but he did take issue with some Arminian theology. Im aware of Finneys theology and have read it thoroughly, and his biography and autobiography as well as pretty much everything written by him.

I recommend anyone read the account of his life and revivals before his theology as there is just so much false accusation against him that abounds.

If Calvinism or Arminianism is spot on why so little fruit?

http://truthinheart.com/Charles_G._Finney.html

[rca]

Wesley was great too, but did was not used by God in mighty revivals such as Finney. Finney was not Pelagain and refuted this and its teaching, he also recommended Wesleys book on Christian perfection, but he did take issue with some Arminian theology. Im aware of Finneys theology and have read it thoroughly, and his biography and autobiography as well as pretty much everything written by him.

I recommend anyone read the account of his life and revivals before his theology as there is just so much false accusation against him that abounds.

If Calvinism or Arminianism is spot on why so little fruit?

http://truthinheart.com/Charles_G._Finney.html

When I first read your original letter on Finney 2 posts earlier I searched the internet to see what I could find about him. I did not have the time to read all he wrote so I had to look at what others said about him. Then I wrote my post.

His systematic theology (1013 pages) was interesting or is interesting. I have started to read a portion of it (justification). I do like what he is saying. From what I have read so far of his actual writings his doctrine is good.

You have read so much more about him so you are in a much better position to know and to comment on him.

My whole reason for being involved in this topic is because I find Calvinism fatalistic. I see it as more preventing revival rather than enhancing or encouraging it. I am all for revival.

It is good to read theology summarized by well known theologians. And to recommend those who have sound doctine. Of course the most important theological book is the Bible. All of us who have a strong opinion on this topic are well versed in the Bible. It is also the source of what theologians get their theology from. So it is from that book that most of this discussion should be about.

From what I have read about Finney he does seem to be an Arminian, certainly not a Calvinist. So if you say that he did take issue with some Arminian theology then please give an example of this.

[JCISGD]

When I first read your original letter on Finney 2 posts earlier I searched the internet to see what I could find about him. I did not have the time to read all he wrote so I had to look at what others said about him. Then I wrote my post.

His systematic theology (1013 pages) was interesting or is interesting. I have started to read a portion of it (justification). I do like what he is saying. From what I have read so far of his actual writings his doctrine is good.

You have read so much more about him so you are in a much better position to know and to comment on him.

My whole reason for being involved in this topic is because I find Calvinism fatalistic. I see it as more preventing revival rather than enhancing or encouraging it. I am all for revival.

It is good to read theology summarized by well known theologians. And to recommend those who have sound doctine. Of course the most important theological book is the Bible. All of us who have a strong opinion on this topic are well versed in the Bible. It is also the source of what theologians get their theology from. So it is from that book that most of this discussion should be about.

From what I have read about Finney he does seem to be an Arminian, certainly not a Calvinist. So if you say that he did take issue with some Arminian theology then please give an example of this.

There is alot of misunderstanding and accusation of Finney out there, Satan does not want his sucess with God repeated.

He was against Calvinism but i think he did not write off everything and certainly was not predjudiced of any theology, but he did denounce the Westminister confession as Calvinism in essence i think because of the part that says a man cannot avoid sin even with the aid of God? Id have to recheck to be sure i got that right.

I too dislike Calvinism for its fatalistic tendency and the general air of arrogance. The hyper Calvinist were laughable, but i suppose hyper Arminism might produce similar absurdacies.

It will take some searching but im confident of my memory of his refutal of some of Arminism theology. Im not really that theologically inclined or suited for such, my main interest is in who did great works in Gods power while remaining pure and why were they so. Im am just staggered that most american christians either do not know of the great revivals wrought by God through Finney or they have mistrust and misimformation.

There are quite a number of well knowns who report being majorly affected by Finney, one such person is Keith Green.

[rca]

When I first read your original letter on Finney 2 posts earlier I searched the internet to see what I could find about him. I did not have the time to read all he wrote so I had to look at what others said about him. Then I wrote my post.

His systematic theology (1013 pages) was interesting or is interesting. I have started to read a portion of it (justification). I do like what he is saying. From what I have read so far of his actual writings his doctrine is good.

You have read so much more about him so you are in a much better position to know and to comment on him.

My whole reason for being involved in this topic is because I find Calvinism fatalistic. I see it as more preventing revival rather than enhancing or encouraging it. I am all for revival.

It is good to read theology summarized by well known theologians. And to recommend those who have sound doctine. Of course the most important theological book is the Bible. All of us who have a strong opinion on this topic are well versed in the Bible. It is also the source of what theologians get their theology from. So it is from that book that most of this discussion should be about.

From what I have read about Finney he does seem to be an Arminian, certainly not a Calvinist. So if you say that he did take issue with some Arminian theology then please give an example of this.

There is alot of misunderstanding and accusation of Finney out there, Satan does not want his sucess with God repeated.

He was against Calvinism but i think he did not write off everything and certainly was not predjudiced of any theology, but he did denounce the Westminister confession as Calvinism in essence i think because of the part that says a man cannot avoid sin even with the aid of God? Id have to recheck to be sure i got that right.

I too dislike Calvinism for its fatalistic tendency and the general air of arrogance. The hyper Calvinist were laughable, but i suppose hyper Arminism might produce similar absurdacies.

It will take some searching but im confident of my memory of his refutal of some of Arminism theology. Im not really that theologically inclined or suited for such, my main interest is in who did great works in Gods power while remaining pure and why were they so. Im am just staggered that most american christians either do not know of the great revivals wrought by God through Finney or they have mistrust and misimformation.

There are quite a number of well knowns who report being majorly affected by Finney, one such person is Keith Green.

Origininally you asked "How about a neither position?" You also have stated in a previous post that Finney had issues with some Arminiam theology. Here you have said "He was against Calvinism but i think he did not write off everything and certainly was not predjudiced of any theology"

There are many that say they have a neither position. Some say they believe both. I cannot find how any of this can be possible. Calvinism in a nutshell is unconditional election. Arminianism in a nutshell is conditional election. I do not see any alternative. You cannot believe in unconditional election and conditional election at the same time. And you cannot beleive in neither either. That is unless you believe in universalism or that nobody is elected. No christian would believe either of the last 2 mentioned.

So can you please explain what a neither position is. How could Finney not believe either?

[JCISGD]

Origininally you asked "How about a neither position?" You also have stated in a previous post that Finney had issues with some Arminiam theology. Here you have said "He was against Calvinism but i think he did not write off everything and certainly was not predjudiced of any theology"

There are many that say they have a neither position. Some say they believe both. I cannot find how any of this can be possible. Calvinism in a nutshell is unconditional election. Arminianism in a nutshell is conditional election. I do not see any alternative. You cannot believe in unconditional election and conditional election at the same time. And you cannot beleive in neither either. That is unless you believe in universalism or that nobody is elected. No christian would believe either of the last 2 mentioned.

So can you please explain what a neither position is. How could Finney not believe either?

I see their respective theologies as consisting of all the various subjects of theology, whereas it seems you are more concerned with the two main differences. I dont think you are wrong to do so, only that we are possibly comparing apples to oranges?

In that case i would say Finney was Arminian, im not scholarly so please excuse any butchering of standard protocol or misunderstanding of theological debate.

Basically i just stumbled on Finneys systematic theology and have read little of others, but my reason has not been offended by anything of Finneys i have read and is proved to me scripturally, logically, and experientially.

Im fairly confident i read of some Arminian theology that Finney found error with, and im confident i also read him saying words to the effect of agreeing with some Calvinist theology. Ill keep trying to find it.

[rca]

Most people see Romans 9 as an exposition of God's sovereignty over free will or as unconditional election. However the idea of unconditional election did not come about until Augustine's time in the 4th century. Before that commentaries were written on Paul's letters including Romans. Nobody imagined such a thing as unconditional election.

It would seem strange for Paul to interrupt the topic at hand to introduce a radical topic like election. The Jews believed that they were saved simply because they are descendants of Abraham and for keeping the law. They were jealous of the Gentiles being justified by faith only. This is hinted at throughout Romans 1-8. See 2:17, 25; 3:1,9, 29: 4:1 for just a few examples. For the Jews if being descendants of Abraham and keeping the law meant nothing then God broke His Old Testament covenant. In their eyes the word of God failed or God's promise was broken. The Jews were furious at Paul's teachings. An example of the Jewish thinking and reaction is found in Acts 13:38-52. In 13:38-39 Paul's proclamation is given and in the rest of this passage is the Jewish reaction.

So now Paul wanted to wanted to focus on this issue. This was such a hot issue that he began by stating 3 times in various ways that he is telling the truth (Rom 9:1). He goes on by telling of his great anguish for the Jews even being willing to be accursed from Christ for the sake of the Jews (Rom 9:3). He reminds them of all their blessings (Rom 9:4-5). Then he begins to respond to the Jewish accusation that God's covenant with Israel or the word of God has failed (6).

9:30 begins with "What shall we say then?". This connects it to what was just said (7-29). Another way of saying that would be "In the light of all that I just said, what is to be the conclusion?". Then he makes his conclusion. The conclusion being that for the Jews they failed to attain righteousness. But it is not because the word of God failed but that the Jews stumbled over the stumbling stone (9:33) as it was written about in Isaiah 28:16. Paul also showed OT Scripture saying that the Gentiles would come to faith in Rom 9:24-29. So to conclude, none of God's word has failed. The Jews have failed to understand God's Word and to follow it.

All this clearly shows that the topic of Rom 9:6-24 is going to be to prove that God did not fail on what He had said in His word. Also Paul will attack the Jews' false belief that they should be saved just because they are Abrahams' descendants or just because they were pursuing the law. The whole context of Romans 9-11 makes it clear that this would be the most natural topic in 9:6-24. Not a entire new topic (unconditional election) that as I will show in subsequent posts are not mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

From what I have just mentioned the questioner that will speak from time to time must be a jealous Jew not an Arminian. Paul mentions the Jewish jealousy is 11:11-14.

Paul's first argument is that not all who are descended from Israel are Israel (9:6). Abraham fathered children through 3 women but only through the child of promise (Isaac) are the children of God counted (9:7-9).

Then Paul gives the next argument. This is a stronger argument. Ishmael was an illegitimate child so in the Jewish mindset, Ishmael did not really belong in Abraham's family. Isaac's (the child of promise) wife Rebekah had twins and before they were born and could do anything good or bad God already chose through whom the line of promise would be. That is the context here, not unconditional election. As I said earlier on, the Jews were trying to obtain righteousness by works. Here Paul proves that before either child could do any works God already chose through which line the promised line would go through. There is nothing here about individual election but the election of nations by God.

9:12 quotes Genesis 25:23 where God is telling Rebekah before the children are born that two nations are inside her. There is nothing here about individual election for salvation. God chose to bless the nation that would come from Jacob before either he or his twin brother could do anything good or bad. God's decision of what nation to bless had nothing to do with the conduct of these 2 individuals.

Rom 9:13 (Jacob I loved, Esau I hated) is quoting Malachi 1:2 a book written many centuries after these 2 children died. It is clearly talking about nations, not individuals. God never said that He hated Esau until centuries after he died. God hated the nation of Esau (Edom) because of their refusal to allow Israel to pass through their land in peace. This rebellion took place long after God chose Jacob. And it was the nation of Esau, not Esau personally that rebelled. The rebellion took place a long time after Esau already died. In fact God was kind to the nation of Esau. He wanted that Israel peacefully walk through their land without taking anything (Deu 2:4-6). In Malachi 2:1-2 God warns Israel that they can expect the same punishment if they continue to rebel against God. There is nothing here about personal election.

In Rom 9:14 the jealous Jew questioner asks if there is injustice on God's part. The answer is no. God has a right to choose which nation the nation of promise will be. Israel became God's favored nation but it was certainly not because Israel was any better than any other nation. The questioner's claim to injustice was not that God hated Esau the person and loved Jacob the person. This was not even the case. And a real Jew would have no problem with Isaac and Jacob being blessed. Paul is defending the Jewish accusation that the word of God failed (9:6). That a true descendant of Israel is one that has faith not a physical descendant of Abraham. That was the Jewish sense of injustice.

Paul answers this accusation with God choosing who He will have mercy on and who He will have compassion on. Moses was the one God chose to have mercy on. The context of when God said this to Moses is when Moses was asking to see God's glory (Exo 33:18-19). God chose to be merciful and compassionate to Moses' request to see God's glory. God did that for Moses but God would not do that for just anybody who asks. It is purely up to God to decide if He will fulfill anybody's request. That is what Rom 9:16 means.

Now Paul turns to Pharaoh in 9:17. The quote given in this verse is from Exodus 9:13-16. There God was saying I could have destoyed Pharaoh and his people by now but I have temporary mercy on Pharaoh because I want to use Pharaoh to show My power.

Then in Rom 9:18 Paul says the famous line. God will have mercy on whom He wills and He will harden whom He will.

Now God knows all people if they will believe or not (John 2:24-25; 6:64). And a person either believes or he does not believe. There is no middle ground. God knew that Pharaoh would never believe in God. God did not have to harden his heart in that way. God hardened Pharaoh's heart not so that he would not repent and believe in God but so that Pharaoh would not listen to Moses' request to let Israel go. Pharah could have reasoned that all these plagues are too burdensome on Egypt's economy and so he may have let them go because of that. But God wanted Pharaoh to stay stubborn until the 10th plague and even then chase after Israel afterwards. All this was to show God's glory and so that the Passover could happen. The Passover is very symbolic of Jesus' death and resurrection and salvation. God wanted to make sure that Pharaoh not let Israel go until the Passover happens.

So God showed mercy to Moses' request to see God's glory and He hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he would not let Israel leave until the appointed time. The mercy in this context has nothing to do with personal election and the hardening in this context has nothing to do with reprobation.

Rom 9:19 has always been seen as a verse talking about God's unconditional election. But in the question "who can resist His will" His will is referring to His wills in Rom 9:18 which had nothing to do with personal election. The jealous Jew questioner is thinking that God has mercy on the Gentiles but He seems to harden the Jews since few believe in God. But God is not hardening the Jews, they are hardening themselves.

Paul responds by using the clay metaphor. In Rom 9:20 Paul is basically saying "how can you a mere man talk to God and tell Him how to run things?". It is like the clay asking the potter why he makes him like that. Jeremiah 18:1-10 is an OT metaphor of clay and the potter. There the clay is not passive. The clay is Israel or any nation and God reworks that clay depending on how that nation repents or does not repent. By using a clay/potter metaphor Paul is telling the Jews that they can be remade according to their repentance or lack of repentance. Instead of asking God why He changed His word (so they think) they need to simply repent. The word of God has not failed (Rom 9:6).

9:22,23 has usually been assumed to mean that the vessels of wrath are the reprobate and the vessels of mercy are the elect. However considering this whole context and the jealous Jew issue it would make more sense that the vessels of wrath are non believing Jews who God is dealing with much patience. See Rom 2:4 where God's patience is said to lead to repentance. The vessels of mercy are the Gentiles.

And God gives mercy to those who repent and His wrath is on those who believe not or turn away from God. As Romans 11 shows God can bring the Jews in or the Gentiles out according to their belief. God's mercy is static. In can change according to how one responds to God. This is also seen in the 9:25-26 quotes.

To conclude the preceding verses of Rom 9:1-6 and the verses of Rom 9:30-11:36 clearly show that the context of 9:7-29 is of the Jewish exclusion of the people of God. 9:24-25 and the rest of the surrounding verses show that Israel can be included if they only come to faith. There is certainly nothing to support that 9:7-29 is speaking about personal unconditional election. Chapter 11 particular shows that God's mercy is dependant on a person's response to God whether they be Jew or Gentile.