Arminians and Calvinists - or Christians?

[ivdavid]

I was going through this biography on Charles Simeon by John Piper here.

This is an extract that I'm copying here, which I've found to be quite relevant to the tone of our discussions in these forums.



" He[Charles Simeon] did not want to be labeled a Calvinist or an Arminian. He wanted to be Biblical through and through and give every text its due proportion, whether it sounded Arminian as it stands or Calvinistic. But he was known as an evangelical Calvinist, and rightly so. As I have read portions of his sermons on texts concerning election and effectual calling and perseverance he is uninhibited in his affirmation of what we would call the doctrines of grace. In fact he uses that phrase approvingly in his sermon on Romans 9:19-24 (Horae Homileticae, Vol. 15, p. 358).

But he had little sympathy for uncharitable Calvinists. In a sermon on Romans 9:16, he said,

Many there are who cannot see these truths [the doctrines of God's sovereignty], who yet are in a state truly pleasing to God; yea many, at whose feet the best of us may be glad to be found in heaven. It is a great evil, when these doctrines are made a ground of separation one from another, and when the advocates of different systems anathematize each other. . . . In reference to truths which are involved in so much obscurity as those which relate to the sovereignty of God mutual kindness and concession are far better than vehement argumentation and uncharitable discussion (Horae Homileticae, Vol. 15, p. 357).
An example of how he lived out this counsel is seen in the way he conversed with the elderly John Wesley. He tells the story himself:

Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?
Yes, I do indeed.

And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

Yes, solely through Christ.

But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

No.

What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms?

Yes, altogether.

And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree. (Moule, 79f) "

 

[Eventide]

Can two walk together except they be agreed ?

As usual, look at the questions which are asked..

But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

Really..? Who is suggesting such a thing ?

Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

Again, Who suggests anything like this.. ?

More importantly.. why would anyone misrepresent those who are not in agreement with them in this way ?

I think that it does more harm than good..

 

[ivdavid]

Eventide,

When people think of their 'faith' as a result of their own effort or power or goodness, that's when it gives rise to certain implications that are to be clarified with such questions.

 

[Former Christian]

Ivdavid

Also a quote from that article:

So I have entitled this message, "Brothers, We Must Not Mind a Little Suffering." I have a very definite Biblical aim in choosing this theme and this man for our meditation. I want to encourage you all to obey Romans 12:12: "Be patient in tribulation." I want you to see persecution and opposition and slander and misunderstanding and disappointment and self-recrimination and weakness and danger as the normal portion of faithful pastoral ministry. But I want you to see this in the life of a man who was a sinner like you and me, who was a pastor, and who, year after year, in his trials, "grew downward" in humility and upward in his adoration of Christ, and who did not yield to bitterness or to the temptation to leave his charge – for 54 years.

And:

He said that his invariable rule was "to endeavor to give to every portion of the Word of God its full and proper force, without considering what scheme it favours, or whose system it is likely to advance" (Moule, 79). "My endeavor is to bring out of Scripture what is there, and not to thrust in what I think might be there. I have a great jealousy on this head; never to speak more or less than I believe to be the mind of the Spirit in the passage I am expounding" (Moule, 77).
He makes an observation that is true enough to sting every person who has ever been tempted to adjust Scripture to fit a system.
Of this he [speaking of himself in the third person] is sure, that there is not a decided Calvinist or Arminian in the world who equally approves of the whole of Scripture . . . who, if he had been in the company of St. Paul whilst he was writing his Epistles, would not have recommended him to alter one or other of his expressions.
But the author would not wish one of them altered; he finds as much satisfaction in one class of passages as another; and employs the one, he believes, as freely as the other. Where the inspired Writers speak in unqualified terms, he thinks himself at liberty to do the same; judging that they needed no instruction from him how to propagate the truth. He is content to sit as a learner at the feet of the holy Apostles and has no ambition to teach them how they ought to have spoken. (Moule, 79)



I would be willing to bet that Charles Simeon would have thought my own ideas, that I believe to be just as biblically based as he would his own, are to be numbered among the fruit of heretics because they wouldn’t be “Biblical†to him. There is a Tradition that Christians and Christianity follows, that must be observed in order to be thought “Biblicalâ€. A Tradition that follows the history of denominational Traditions. John Wesley was an Anglican to his death, never becoming a part of the Methodist denomination started by his more divisive followers. And as shown in your quotes above, even Simeon thought that Wesleyanism and Calvinism have enough in common that there shouldn’t be any actual division at all.

The suffering of Simeon as an Anglican couldn’t have been as much as claimed without him also being more denominational in his thinking. Because in his day, as today, there was a wide range of belief in Anglicanism. It included such as John Henry Newman who was so Catholic that he eventually converted to Catholicism. It included such as John Wesley who was very Evangelical in his own way. And it included Evangelicals of a more Calvinistic leaning, such as Simeon. And there were other viewpoints as well.

In any congregation, there will be such people who fight you on every issue and have no real intention toward unity. Their whole purpose is to be as disagreeable as possible. He would have had to put up with them no matter what Church he was a part of, or whether or not he was a Pastor. He stuck it out with the largest and most influential Church at the time. Surely commendable, but I doubt even he would have thought it worthy of a sermon. With such a love for Scripture, he would have thought a good reading of Scripture, or at least a good sermon on a portion of Scripture, would have served better in a Worship Service.

FC

 

[Eventide]

Eventide,

When people think of their 'faith' as a result of their own effort or power or goodness, that's when it gives rise to certain implications that are to be clarified with such questions.

Well, who thinks of their faith as the result of their own effort, power, or goodness ?

Seriously, who thinks THAT ?

 

[ivdavid]

Well, who thinks of their faith as the result of their own effort, power, or goodness ?

Heb 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
We see here that though the Gospel is preached the same, the difference in its effect is based on whether they believed what they heard or not.

There are some who think this act of believing is of one's own effort/power/goodness - and then there are some who think that this faith itself is not of themselves but given of God's grace. The former view requires clarification.

 

[Eventide]

There are some who think this act of believing is of one's own effort/power/goodness

WHO ?

You can say it all day long.. where's the evidence.. give us some names of those who think that believing is of ones own effort/power/goodness..

Can you do that, or will we just get more of the same.. blanket statements without any support..

 

[childeye]

If the point of this thread is to say the one who knows more is held more accountable than the one who knows less if there be any division according to doctrine, I would agree for what it's worth. The Truth is founded upon the faith that Love is eternal. I would think hell is where those go whom God knows will refuse to believe that.

 

[ivdavid]

Eventide,

Seeing you have no objections to any part of what's been stated here concerning God,

"with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree."

 

[ivdavid]

Childeye,

When it comes to division in doctrine, there are 2 kinds - the really serious ones that ought to be defended staunchly like Paul does in Galatians - and the rest, that ought to be tolerated in unity like in Romans 14.

I think we'll first have to discuss which division in doctrine falls under which kind - lest we defend vigorously that which ought to be tolerated in unity and we tolerate that which ought to be defended against.

A specific case is this Arminian-Calvinistic division where I've seen quite some contempt on both sides for the other - that's not exactly founded on love.
The point of this thread is to show that if we agree upon the crucial parts of the truth in Christ, why not tolerate each other in unity for the remaining differences - for God is able to make each one stand.

Note, I use these words Arminian and Calvinistic not as labels to put people into man-defined boxes, but as mere references to a particular set of beliefs one may hold.

 

[childeye]

Childeye,

When it comes to division in doctrine, there are 2 kinds - the really serious ones that ought to be defended staunchly like Paul does in Galatians - and the rest, that ought to be tolerated in unity like in Romans 14.

I think we'll first have to discuss which division in doctrine falls under which kind - lest we defend vigorously that which ought to be tolerated in unity and we tolerate that which ought to be defended against.

A specific case is this Arminian-Calvinistic division where I've seen quite some contempt on both sides for the other - that's not exactly founded on love.
The point of this thread is to show that if we agree upon the crucial parts of the truth in Christ, why not tolerate each other in unity for the remaining differences - for God is able to make each one stand.

Note, I use these words Arminian and Calvinistic not as labels to put people into man-defined boxes, but as mere references to a particular set of beliefs one may hold.

Thank you ivdavid for noticing my post and responding. That certainly was Love and caring for my personal edification. Also you have eloquently pointed out there are things worth debating and God has not given us swords for no purpose. But here is exactly where two perspectives meet, at the cross, and even become closer as they approach the cross. For the children born according to the works of the law persecute those who are of promise, and the ones of promise know those who persecute them can't help it for their persecutors believe they are serving God.

And so this is what I see happening here and everywhere. So how we deal with one another is under the eyes of God and we are accountable for knowing that others don't know and we are still beholden to Love them as if they were us. Forgive them Lord they know not what they do.

I'm not saying stop preaching the Good News, not at all. I'm saying to Love your enemies and in this doctrine we can unite. For this is what it is to walk in the faith That Love is eternal and not be ruled by fear and this is how I see Jesus and the Spirit of the Christ.

 

[Eventide]

Eventide,

Seeing you have no objections to any part of what's been stated here concerning God,

"with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree."

What's sad although typical in this case is that you make statements about how 'some' believe through their own effort/power/goodness.. and then when asked who.. nothing..

I often hear complaints of people misrepresenting Calvinism and yet Calvinists misrepresent opposing views consistently.. but it's no big deal.. as they say.. it's all good, right..

 

[Gazelle]

The Corinthian church had a similar problem where they were putting their own beliefs ahead of Christ's and
"following" the apostle/disciple that most closely gave them what they themselves believed.

Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.................. I Corinthians 1:12

That you are divided into different factions, and ranged under different leaders. The word translated "that" ὅτι hoti might be translated here, "because," or "since," as giving a reason for his affirming 1 Corinthians 1:11 that there were contentions there. "Now I say that there are contentions, because you are ranged under different leaders," etc. - Calvin.

"What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms?"

Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. :yes

Praise be to God for His unspeakable GIFT! :heart

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Eventide,

When people think of their 'faith' as a result of their own effort or power or goodness, that's when it gives rise to certain implications that are to be clarified with such questions.

Men's ability to freely choose, was given by God, who created him. (man) Man has the choice to believe in, religion, philosophy, atheism, cults, or whatever he chooses. That's free choice, the way God created us...

 

[ivdavid]

When people think of their 'faith' as a result of their own effort or power or goodness, that's when it gives rise to certain implications that are to be clarified with such questions.

Men's ability to freely choose, was given by God, who created him. (man) Man has the choice to believe in, religion, philosophy, atheism, cults, or whatever he chooses. That's free choice, the way God created us...

First things first, I was dealing with a very specific topic of whether our faith - not in some random thing but very specifically whether our faith in Christ is of our own effort/power/goodness or not. How would you answer that?

And when you say man has the ability to "freely" choose - are you saying that man is uninfluenced by both sin and God at the time of his making a choice? If not, in what sense is it "free"?

I mean, there are always grounds for choosing one thing over another - the underlying intent/inclination. I may be presented a choice to either present alms to the poor or not give them any - and I may choose to not give them any, because my love for my own money is too much to part with. I may choose to not give them alms because I self-righteously declare them to be undeserving of my charity. I may choose to give them alms because I like to be seen as charitable in front of other people. I may choose to give them alms because it primarily makes me feel good. Every choice has an underlying intent/motive that spurs the choice on - and these underlying intents are what define us as either good or evil - they define our moral character. In that sense, isn't choosing to believe in Christ of ourselves indicative of us being of good moral character - at least good enough to accept God's indictment and to consequently put our faith in Christ while so many others are not this good enough to choose so?

 

[Eventide]

trust..

For the record.. the scriptures do not teach that man chooses God.. they teach that men trust in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins, after they hear the gospel.. and then after they believe, God seals them with the Holy Spirit of promise.

Next I'm sure that we'll hear that men can't trust in Christ..

 

[ivdavid]

For the record.. the scriptures do not teach that man chooses God..

I'm not able to discern your point here. I thought the implication in post#15 is that man is freely able to choose(choice) to trust(action) in God. Every action is preceded by the choice of it - so that the choice to act and the action itself, though distinct, are counted as the same event for reference sake. What other distinction are you pointing to here when you say there's a difference between man choosing God(choice) and man trusting(action) in God? Aren't they the same event - man choosing to trust in God?

Next I'm sure that we'll hear that men can't trust in Christ..

Of course they can - by the working of God in them of His grace.

they teach that men trust in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins

Is that all "trust in Christ" consists of? The forgiveness of sins alone? Would you also say that we have to trust in Christ for every single act of good to be worked in us or would you say we are already sufficiently able to do so?

I ask this because I'd like to know if you treat "faith and repentance" as works that man has to do in order for God to act in him or as the very working of God in man.

 

[Eventide]

I'm not able to discern your point here. I thought the implication in post#15 is that man is freely able to choose(choice) to trust(action) in God. Every action is preceded by the choice of it - so that the choice to act and the action itself, though distinct, are counted as the same event for reference sake. What other distinction are you pointing to here when you say there's a difference between man choosing God(choice) and man trusting(action) in God? Aren't they the same event - man choosing to trust in God?

Simply clarifying what the scriptures actually teach.. that men trust in Christ after hearing the gospel.. they're not choosing God per say, they're trusting in His work for the forgivness of their sins.

Of course they can - by the working of God in them of His grace.

I agree.. the gospel doesn't come from us.. it comes from God.. and He is that true light which lighteth every man that comes into the world.

Is that all "trust in Christ" consists of? The forgiveness of sins alone? Would you also say that we have to trust in Christ for every single act of good to be worked in us or would you say we are already sufficiently able to do so?

At the point of salvation I would say no.. all a person needs to do is what the scriptures teach.. trust in God's Son for the forgiveness of their sins.. that's what the bible says plainly.

I ask this because I'd like to know if you treat "faith and repentance" as works that man has to do in order for God to act in him or as the very working of God in man.

Repentance toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ.. and we know that the goodness of God leads US to repentance and that God is the author and finisher of our faith.. once again, what MUST I DO to be saved.. and that of course is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

First things first, I was dealing with a very specific topic of whether our faith - not in some random thing but very specifically whether our faith in Christ is of our own effort/power/goodness or not. How would you answer that?

And when you say man has the ability to "freely" choose - are you saying that man is uninfluenced by both sin and God at the time of his making a choice? If not, in what sense is it "free"?

I mean, there are always grounds for choosing one thing over another - the underlying intent/inclination. I may be presented a choice to either present alms to the poor or not give them any - and I may choose to not give them any, because my love for my own money is too much to part with. I may choose to not give them alms because I self-righteously declare them to be undeserving of my charity. I may choose to give them alms because I like to be seen as charitable in front of other people. I may choose to give them alms because it primarily makes me feel good. Every choice has an underlying intent/motive that spurs the choice on - and these underlying intents are what define us as either good or evil - they define our moral character. In that sense, isn't choosing to believe in Christ of ourselves indicative of us being of good moral character - at least good enough to accept God's indictment and to consequently put our faith in Christ while so many others are not this good enough to choose so?

First of all, "you ask if our faith in Christ comes from our own effort?" The answer is, a resounding, yes. Freewill MUST, by definition be, of our own volition. Otherwise, it can not be considered, "free will." If we are coerced by outside sources which have the power to sway us over to their side, without our ability to resist, then it is no longer free will, but control.

You asked, "And when you say man has the ability to "freely" choose - are you saying that man is uninfluenced by both sin and God at the time of his making a choice? If not, in what sense is it "free"? Man is definitely influenced by his own knowledge of being, a lost sinner (due to the conviction,not the force of the Holy Spirit) God does not force Himself on anyone regarding His Grace.

So you see, we have both the influence of our own, knowledge of personal sinfulness and the influence of the Holy Spirit. But we still have our freewill to choose. The young rich man (in the Bible) who came to Jesus asking about eternal life, and how he may achieve it, Jesus told him to give away his riches and follow Him. The young man CHOOSE to walk away from Jesus.

You asked, "In that sense, isn't choosing to believe in Christ of ourselves indicative of us being of good moral character - at least good enough to accept God's indictment and to consequently put our faith in Christ while so many others are not this good enough to choose so" The answer is, quite the contrary, we need to recognize that we are lost in our sins and unable to stand before a God who expects only, sinless perfection. We cannot approach God with an attitude that we are somehow "worthy" due to our own "moral character or good works. We go before God, humbly with a repentant heart, realizing we are a lost sinner in need of a Savior.

In conclusion, The Holy Spirit works on the hearts of ALL men and women. And Christ died for the sins of ALL of us, not just for a small group of,"the elect." Some will receive God's Grace, other's will not...

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Simply clarifying what the scriptures actually teach.. that men trust in Christ after hearing the gospel.. they're not choosing God per say, they're trusting in His work for the forgivness of their sins.



I agree.. the gospel doesn't come from us.. it comes from God.. and He is that true light which lighteth every man that comes into the world.




At the point of salvation I would say no.. all a person needs to do is what the scriptures teach.. trust in God's Son for the forgiveness of their sins.. that's what the bible says plainly.



Repentance toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ.. and we know that the goodness of God leads US to repentance and that God is the author and finisher of our faith.. once again, what MUST I DO to be saved.. and that of course is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

AMEN!!!