Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Calvinism vs. Arminianism

JM

Member
Wow, this forum is full of folks that really don’t understand Calvinism. I see a lot false ideas being posted on this forum by well meaning but not well informed folks so I wanted to make a post, not to debate, but as an info post. The confusions exists in the terms being used, Calvinism is being confused with Hyper-Calvinism and Amyraldism with Armimianism and Arminianism with Open Theism.

Whoa!

Supralapsarianism? Infralapsarianism? Amyraldism? Arminianism? What's he talking about? The ordering of God's eternal decrees:
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm

I'd like to suggest a title that could be inter library loaned from your local library called, "Debating Calvinism: five points-two views" by Hunt and White.

Debating Calvinism breaks all the rules in the context of today's evangelical church. This is as close to a real debate as you can get, though, in written format it does not allow the kind of cross-examination that is needed. Both authors present seven positive presentations, making for a total of fourteen chapters. In each, the other responds and interacts repeatedly. Both provide an introduction and a conclusion to the book, and each person has identical limitations based on word-counts. Hence, at least from the aspect of space, the debate is fair. This book will definitely prove, yet again, that God's truth must be established on the basis of the exegesis of the text of Holy Scripture, and that everyone must be very careful to examine their traditions in that light.

I'll log back on and post more info, but right now I'm out of time. If anyone has questions about what Calvinists really believe, please ask. If I don't know the answer I won't pretend to, but will post relevent articles and material to read.

Peace,

jm
 
reply

The reason Calvanism, Armeniasm, and all these different types of doctrine, it is not understandible. To believe like they do, takes faith right out of the equasion for salvation, which we are saved by grace through faith. People fumble around with the book of James when it says faith without works is dead. The simple explanation is if one doesn't user their faith for salvation or other things, then I guess faith is dead. The work would be a corresponding action to what we must do to be saved. Confess with our mouths.


Did you ever think that the Thelogeans of the 16th, 17th, and 17th were wrong with their interpretations of the Word, just like Catholic Thelogians. This kind of interpretation of the Bible has been going on for a couple thousand years, until the Pentecostals came into the scene around the first part of the 20th century. Your case for all these Calvanism doctrines really falls flat on it's face if one really thinks about it. It's kind of a sacred cow, and pet doctrine that don't make sense. By what I have seen, you guys don't even understand it yourselves.


May God bless, golfjack
 
I follow God and Yeshua, and the words of the Bible, not what Calvin or anyone else may have said later. I think we would all do better to only worry about God's Word, not anyone else's.
 
Quote from http://www.corkfpc.com/avoidingconfusion.html

SOME THINGS NON CALVINISTS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT CALVINISM:
An attempt to clear up some of the misunderstandings about Calvinism. It is not meant to be a detailed doctrinal defence of the Doctrines of Grace which can be found elsewhere on this site.

1) Calvinism and Hyper Calvinism are poles apart. The terms are not to be used synonymously. A Hyper Calvinist is not just a zealous Calvinist. We both consider each other to be "mongrel" Calvinists. No man will call himself a Hyper Calvinist.

2) Yes Calvinists are split into several factions. But then so are many such doctrinal schools e.g. Dispensationalism, Church Government, Worship…do we sing only the Psalms or use hymns? Which hymns? Do we use music? Which music? Which set of texts do we base our Bible translation on? Is it the Textus Receptus that is important or the (KJV) AV? or both? etc.,

3) The term free will needs to be defined to avoid confusion. Calvinists will either affirm it or deny it, depending on what they think you mean…This sometimes leads to charges of contradictions. Consult the standard Calvinist Confessions e.g. the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 9 for a defining of terms.

4) The term free agency is not automatically the same as free will when used by a Calvinist. It is the Calvinist's preferred term to free will. Preferred so as to avoid the confusion spoken of in the above point.

5) Calvinists do believe in man's responsibility, but deny his ability to repent and believe the gospel. The two terms are not synonymous. Calvinists believe that man's inability to repent and believe are caused by his own sin ... not any positive imposition on God's part.

6) Calvinists do not believe that men are puppets or blocks of wood or robots, but responsible beings and are treated as such by God, even when fallen.

7) Calvinists are not fatalists. Calvinists believe that God has ordained the end and also the means to that end. Therefore they do believe in evangelism as the means God uses to fulfil His intention of saving the elect. It is not true to say that Calvinists believe that God saves men without the gospel. Calvinists do believe in prayer.

8) Calvinists do believe that it is the duty of men to repent and believe the gospel. This is one of our quarrels with the Hyper Calvinists.

9) Calvinists do believe that the gospel is (to quote Calvin) to be preached indiscriminately to the elect and to the reprobate (Commentary on Isaiah 54:13) This is another one of our quarrels with the Hyper Calvinists.

10) Calvinists do not limit the value or merit or worth of the blood of Christ. They do limit the intention of the blood to save any other than the elect. We are happy enough (as was John Calvin) with the statement that the blood of Christ is sufficient for the whole world but efficient only for the elect.

11) Calvinists do not believe that men are damned without any reference to their sin. God passing by and leaving certain men in their sin is not the same as God damning men by the sheer force of His decree.

12) Calvinists do not just preach on the Five Points and nothing else. At least no more so than Dispensationalists who just preach on prophecy or Pentecostals who just preach on the gifts of the Spirit etc.,

13) Calvinists do not read the Five Points into every text of scripture. Many of the major Bible commentaries, beloved and valued by all Christians e.g. Matthew Henry were written by Calvinists.

14) Calvinists do believe that men can resist the Holy Spirit. They believe that even the elect can resist the Holy Spirit, and do…but only up to the time when the Spirit regenerates their heart so that resist Him no more. The non elect effectively resist Him all their lives.

15) Calvinists do not believe that men are brought kicking and screaming irresistibly to Christ. We believe in irresistible grace. The will is not passed by in salvation. No man ever came to Christ unwillingly, or regretted that he had been brought.

16) Calvinist's do not believe that there are souls out there who want to be saved, but can't be saved because they are not of the elect.

17) Calvinists, being without access to the Lamb's Book of Life, see every man as potentially elect and preach the gospel to him.

18) Calvinists do believe in unconditional election but they do not believe in unconditional salvation. Except a man be born again, he will not enter the kingdom of Heaven (John 3:3) Except he repent, he will perish (Luke 13:3) Except he be converted etc., …all these are conditions of salvation.

19) Calvinists do believe that regeneration either precedes or automatically and immediately produces faith in Christ. We do not confuse the term regeneration with that of justification or salvation. The Spirit of God regenerates the elect sinner enabling him to forsake the deadness of his sin and willingly embrace Christ and so be justified by faith and saved for eternity. Regeneration therefore is not synonymous with justification or salvation any more than conviction of sin is synonymous with conversion to Christ.

20) Perseverance of the saints does not mean that Calvinists believe that they must hang on for dear life without any reference to the keeping power of God. It simply means that we believe that the Christian will prove to be an overcomer in accordance with 1 John 5:4-5 etc.,

21) Some Calvinists use the phrase Particular Redemption as opposed to Limited Atonement because they can see how the General Redemptionist position may also be said to limit the atonement, although in a different way i.e. it does not set out to do all what was intended.

22) Calvinists do not believe that John Calvin is infallible…no more than Methodists believe that John Wesley is infallible or Dispensationalists allowing Schofield or John Darby the final word.

23) While Calvinists believe that saving grace and repentance are the gifts of God, given only to His elect, they do not believe that God exercises faith for them or repents for them. The elect sinner, enabled by the power of God, actually repents and believes for himself.

24) While there can be no real middle ground between the Calvinist position and that of the non Calvinist…yet most Calvinists believe that both sides really do preach the gospel. Despite our differences as to many of the details, a man who preaches that Christ died for the ungodly and that the work was sufficient to save the whosoever who will repent and believe is really preaching the gospel. We rejoice in the gospel preaching of John Wesley just as much as that of George Whitefield, although (naturally) we would hold Whitefield to be the better theologian.

25) There is a difference between a paradox and a contradiction. We know that God is sovereign, yet man is free to follow the dictates of his own will. Where the two lines meet is not for us to say. Calvinist ignorance on the matter is to be excused on the basis of Deuteronomy 29:29

26) Although Calvinists believe that even sinful acts are ordained by God (Ephesians 1:11/Proverbs 16:4) yet such makes the event certain…but not necessary. This clears God from being the author of sin. This view best explains the Cross (Acts 2:23/4:27-28/Luke 22:22) This is explained further elsewhere on this site.

-oOo-

So there you have it. I don't expect this list to really convince any body of the correctness of the Calvinist position. It is not meant to be a doctrinal defence of Calvinism. I give few references because I want to keep it short and easy accessible. The standard Calvinistic Confessions e.g. the Westminster Confession of Faith etc., should be consulted for definitive statements. The Dictionary of Theological Terms (Rev. Alan Cairns - Ambassador-Emerald) is an invaluable tool. Hopefully it will clear up more than a few misunderstandings. It is wearisome in the extreme to see a caricature of your faith pilloried. Perhaps someone on the other side of the fence (non Calvinist) might engage in a similar exercise and so clear up any misunderstandings Calvinists might have.
 
Chapter 9: Of Free Will
1._____ God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.
( Matthew 17:12; James 1:14; Deuteronomy 30:19 )

2._____ Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God, but yet was unstable, so that he might fall from it.
( Ecclesiastes 7:29; Genesis 3:6 )

3._____ Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
( Romans 5:6; Romans 8:7; Ephesians 2:1, 5; Titus 3:3-5; John 6:44 )

4._____ When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that by reason of his remaining corruptions, he doth not perfectly, nor only will, that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.
( Colossians 1:13; John 8:36; Philippians 2:13; Romans 7:15, 18, 19, 21, 23 )

5._____ This will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone in the state of glory only.
( Ephesians 4:13 )


London Baptist Confession, 1689
 
Prior to examining 'Calvinistic doctrine' as to what a Calvinist believes I would ask the following:

Concerning the man. .

1. To what degree is Calvin elevated posthumously?

Concerning his works. .

2. How faithful are the English translations of Calvins works? I am asking this with reference to 'editing language' that may be offensive and judged unsuitable for today.

Concerning the scriptures . .

3. When the Calvinist reads the scriptures, does he suffer from 'emphasis distortion'?

Concerning the believer. .

4. Are Calvinist any different 'internally' than 'Christians' who go by other labels?

Concerning the doctrine. .

5. If doctrine is confessed in the comfort of a church or a study. . .will this confession be held in the face of persecution?

I ask these perhaps 'sensitive questions' because I had to set aside Cornelius Van Til's Defense of the faith. . . and leave the 'Institutes of the Christian Religion' overseas. . . Is there something in all this that I am jealous about?

In Christ: Stranger
 
Prior to examining 'Calvinistic doctrine' as to what a Calvinist believes I would ask the following:

Concerning the man. .

1. To what degree is Calvin elevated posthumously?

Concerning his works.

As I’m sure you know Theodore Beza was hand picked and responsible for much of the modern expression of what become known as Calvinism.

2. How faithful are the English translations of Calvins works? I am asking this with reference to 'editing language' that may be offensive and judged unsuitable for today.

Concerning the scriptures.

It doesn’t matter if you read the works of John Calvin or Augustine. We are discussing Biblical doctrine and not what men say about it. Calvin didn't invent Calvinism as your first question implied so it makes little sense to focus on the value of his work until after you've had a chance to see what the Bible teaches on Grace. The Baptist Andrew Fuller, who began the modern mission movement wrote, “I do not believe every thing that Calvin taught, nor any thing because he taught it; but I reckon strict Calvinism to be my own system.†The doctrines of Grace are found in Scripture.

3. When the Calvinist reads the scriptures, does he suffer from 'emphasis distortion'?

Concerning the believer.

Absolutely possible. But if you stress the point you’re trying to make you end up with relativism. Do you suffer from 'emphasis distortion?' :wink:

4. Are Calvinist any different 'internally' than 'Christians' who go by other labels?

Concerning the doctrine.

“No.†“Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.â€Â

5. If doctrine is confessed in the comfort of a church or a study. . .will this confession be held in the face of persecution?

I ask these perhaps 'sensitive questions' because I had to set aside Cornelius Van Til's Defense of the faith. . . and leave the 'Institutes of the Christian Religion' overseas. . . Is there something in all this that I am jealous about?

In Christ: Stranger

As for question 5, it seems you have your answer, revealing something of yourself in your closing. I started this thread in hopes of giving those who know little or nothing about Calvinism a chance to learn what it is. As you can see many topics exist with debate in mind...I prayer this doesn't become just another anti-Calvinist thread filled with straw men.


Peace,

jm
 
Hi JM,

Would it not be preferable to use 'Reformed' rather than 'Calvinist' - the former - a generic (stream) - the latter definitely a person? 'Calvinist' has the same connotation as 'Lutheran'. To honest plain usage of language a Calvinist follows the teachings of Calvin and a Lutheran follows the teachings of Luther. I understand your references to Augustine and the claim that Calvin was 'Augustinian'.


When you say you are dealing with biblical doctrine - you are dealing with some - but by no means all doctrine.

Atonement made the point somewhere that every word in scripture is equally weighted - or words to that effect. Well this is not reflected in any confession of faith (or theological works) I have ever read Reformed or otherwise - it is selective -as I am sure you know. If it is selective what doctrine(s) remain in scripture that are never noticed?

In Christ: Stranger
 
First I’d like to say thank you for respecting my request: “I started this thread in hopes of giving those who know little or nothing about Calvinism a chance to learn what it is. As you can see many topics exist with debate in mind...I prayer this doesn't become just another anti-Calvinist thread filled with straw men.â€Â

Hi JM,

Would it not be preferable to use 'Reformed' rather than 'Calvinist' - the former - a generic (stream) - the latter definitely a person? 'Calvinist' has the same connotation as 'Lutheran'. To honest plain usage of language a Calvinist follows the teachings of Calvin and a Lutheran follows the teachings of Luther. I understand your references to Augustine and the claim that Calvin was 'Augustinian'.

To the members on this forum Calvinist would probably be the best way to describe the doctrines concerning Grace that I confess. To my Reformed brothers and sisters, they would probably prefer I use the term “Particular Baptist†or just plain ol' Baptist.

When you say you are dealing with biblical doctrine - you are dealing with some - but by no means all doctrine.

Inferred but not proven.

Atonement made the point somewhere that every word in scripture is equally weighted - or words to that effect. Well this is not reflected in any confession of faith (or theological works) I have ever read Reformed or otherwise –

Personal opinion is good, everybody has one. I agree with "sola scripture" and "tote scriptura" (only Scripture and all of Scripture).

it is selective -as I am sure you know. If it is selective what doctrine(s) remain in scripture that are never noticed?

In Christ: Stranger

No confession is infallible and no one I know would make such a claim. As a Baptist, confessions are always secondary, used sparingly and only when they state a doctrine clearly. This passive aggressive posting is silly, say what you mean and mean what you say. [kinda like a confession]

jm
 
Back on track...

Monergism simply means that it is God who gives ears to hear and eyes to see. It is God alone who gives illumination and understanding of His word that we might believe; It is God who raises us from the dead, who circumcises the heart; unplugs our ears; It is God alone who can give us a new sense that we may, at last, have the moral capacity to behold His beauty and unsurpassed excellency. The apostle John recorded Jesus saying to Nicodemus that we naturally love darkness, hate the light and WILL NOT come into the light (John 3:19, 20). And since our hardened resistance to God is thus seated in our affections, only God, by His grace, can lovingly change, overcome and disarm our rebellious disposition. The natural man, apart from the quickening work of the Holy Spirit, will not come to Christ on his own since he is at enmity with God and cannot understand spiritual things. Shining a light into a blind man's eyes will not enable his to see, since, as we all know, sight requires new eyes or some restoration of his visual faculty. Likewise, reading or hearing the word of God itself cannot elicit saving faith in the reader (or hearer) unless the Spirit first "germinates" the seed of the word in the heart, so to speak, which then infallibly gives rise to our faith and union with Christ. Like unto Lydia whom "the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul," (Acts 16:14) He must also give all His people spiritual life and understanding if their hearts are to be open and thus turn (respond) to Christ in faith.

Definition
The Century Dictionary's definition of monergism may be helpful:
"In theology, [monergism is] the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration [the new birth] - that the human will possesses no inclination to holiness until regenerated [born again], and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration."

Etymology
The word "monergism" consists of two main parts. The Greek prefix "mono" signifies "one", "single", or "alone" while the suffix "ergon" means "to work". Taken together it means "the work of one".

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/a ... imple.html
 
Back
Top