Here We Go Again...
Well, I have spent quite a bit of time studying the Calvinism-Arminianism debate and would like to report back to you.
The more I study Calvinism the more unbiblical it becomes to me. Calvinism and Scripture do not "line up." Calvinism is one man's (okay, two men...Augustine & Calvin) distorted view and misapplication of Scripture. However, don't think that I believe the Arminianists are 100% correct either. There are some problems they have concerning being biblical. So, here's my thoughts on the "TULIP."
Total Depravity - It's half-right according to the Bible.
Unconditional Election - Totally wrong according to the Bible.
Limited Atonement - Totally wrong according to the Bible.
Irresistable Grace - Totally wrong according to the Bible.
Perseverance Of The Saints - It's half-right according to the Bible.
Now, I know some of you will not understand exactly where I stand (especially when I say it's half-right). But, just so, I believe it is important for you to know that I cannot condone the Calvinistic view of salvation especially when it contradicts Scripture. Having said that, I do not condone the Arminian view of salvation because it also does not answer questions or it contradicts Scripture as well. So, why follow two men...who are after all men? Let's go by what the Bible says and not what some man has taught as systematic theology.
Posts
In other words, bibelot and beyond
39 minutes ago
15 comments:
1st, what and who have you been reading?
"calvinists" have a very high view of scripture. please don't be so smug as to claim that it is the charm of long dead men that has drawn us away from the bible. there may be disagreement on interpretation, but we are starting with the scriptures and in many cases, coming to the same conclusions as calvin and augustine without having read their writings at all.
(to be fair, though, i suppose you would have considered charles spurgeon smug when he said things like,
"I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor."
http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm)
if the label "calvinism" bothers you because it's based on a man's name, feel free to use something else...like "reformed soteriology."
i might also point out that for all your alleged enthusiasm for "following the bible," it's now over a month after your initial post on "alcohol and the bible" and you have yet to begin to respond to the scripture presented (mostly by "calvinists" BTW.) instead, you have preferred to argue based on human speculation on ancient culture...even when the context of scripture makes their conclusions extremely improbable, if not impossible.
and what have you got against the doctrine of "perseverance?" it seems the most obvious...
Mark 13:13
All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.
1Cor1:8
He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful.
do you believe that we don't have to "stand firm to the end" or that God is not "faithful" to "keep us strong to the end?"
-charles
yep, i double-checked the last post on calvinism, which had 135 replies, and the only person there to quote john calvin...
...was you.
Charles,
Thanks for all your input on these debates. Before I begin with some replies, let me say first that I did not intend to come across as smug. That is the last thing that crossed my mind as I wrote this post. So accept my apology if I appeared smug. I meant to appear firm in conviction, but not smug. Also, I have nothing against the doctrine of perseverance, per se, but I disagree with how Calvinists come to the conclusion of perseverance. I do agree that once you are saved, you are always saved; I differ on how that conclusion is reached. As far as quoting John Calvin...well, I don't specifically remember what quote I used, but I would like to know what a man taught before I attached his name to my belief (so I guess you could call yourself a reformed soteriologist instead as you suggested).
Also, concerning the alcohol debate - I deliberately refrained from using Scripture on that debate. Why? Mainly because I wanted all of you to argue it out. I just wanted to stir the pot some and see what came of it. Technically, I'm not too concerned with that issue; I just enjoyed watching all of you debate and answer questions (which there were some excellent answers by the way).
Oh my.
No, Stephanie, I'm not trying to start the whole Calvinism debate again, although...
Hahaha!!!
What part of the idea of "total depravity" do you think is half right and what part is half wrong?
Robert Lee,
(Hopefully I'll word this right. If I do not, then don't hesitate to correct me.)
I do believe that man is born a sinner because he "inherits" the sin nature. It is the sin nature passed down from Adam. So, on this point, I do agree. Where I seem to part ways with the Calvinists, according to my understanding, is that man cannot make a conscious decision on whether or not to accept Christ without God first spiritually awakening them (or as some say, giving them eternal life, spiritual life, being born again, etc.). Now, Calvinists may disagree about the meaning of "spiritual awakening," but from most of the Calvinist authors I've looked at they mean that God must have first given spiritual life to the person before that person can accept Christ (repent and believe). (And I hope you understand what I'm saying here.) However, the Bible clearly gives the order of repentance/belief and then eternal life (now, these are somewhat simultaneous...so go with me here). Now, there is the issue of the Holy Spirit. Yes, the Holy Spirit must convict a person of their sin and draw them to God, however, God wishes to draw all men unto Him.
Some of the differences I have with Calvinists may be technicalities, others, I think, may be more major. But hopefully, I've explained my basic differences with Calvinists on total depravity. If not, let me know.
Here are a few thoughts as I get ready to leave for the singing at Appleby.
There is some variation among Calvinists concerning what you discuss above. Some believe in "spirit regeneration" -- directly by the Spirit and not dependent on the preached word. Others believe in "gospel regeneration" -- by the Spirit but in conjunction with the hearing of the gospel. I don't think these differenct Calvinists hold any particular difference in the idea of total depravity, though. John Piper, a Calvinistic Baptist, presents total depravity this way: "Man's depravity is total in at least four senses. (1) Our rebellion against God is total. (2) In his total rebellion everything man does is sin. (3) Man's inability to submit to God and do good is total. (4) Our rebellion is totally deserving of eternal punishment."
Non-Calvinistic Missionary Baptists of ABA, BMAA & SBC varieties have traditionally held total depravity (though perhaps a "softer" version). The New Hampshire Confession of Faith states "being by nature utterly void of that holiness required by the law of God, positively inclined to evil; and therefore under just condemnation to eternal ruin, without defense or excuse." [The New Hampshire was the original confession of the ABA, with the 12 point declaration of things most assuredly believed among us an explanation of details concerning it]. In the Searchlight, Ben M. Bogard wrote of the fall of Adam and depravity, saying "...sin corrupted all the characteristics that he then had."
Maybe there are some differences in the exact way depravity is defined and described, but all non-Arminian Baptists have traditionally agreed that they hold the idea of "total depravity".
i would like to know what you have been studying, though.
i do hope you started with james white, piper or spurgeon and are looking at how they are handling the scriptures which you feel they are misapplying...
I do not agree with any of the five points of Calvinism.
I agree with the five Articles of Arminianism. So, I guess I could be called a five point Arminian. In fact, when I explained them to my church, they also found themselves to be Arminians.
Check this out:
Article 1.
[Conditional Election - corresponds to the second of TULIP’s five points, Unconditional Election]
That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son before the foundation of the world, has determined that out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who through the grace of the Holy Spirit shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath and to condemn them as alienated from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that does not believe the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.
Article 2.
[Unlimited Atonement - corresponds to the third of TULIP’s five points, Limited Atonement]
That, accordingly, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
Article 3.
[Deprivation - corresponds to the first of TULIP’s five points, Total Depravity]
That man does not posses saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is necessary that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, and will, and all his faculties, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me you can do nothing.”
Article 4.
[Resistible Grace - corresponds to the fourth of TULIP’s five points, Irresistible Grace]
That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to the extent that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements that can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But with respect to the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, since it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Spirit (Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places).
Article 5.
[Assurance and Security - corresponds to the fifth of TULIP’s five points, Perseverance of the Saints]
That those who are incorporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, as a result have full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no deceit or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of neglecting grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full confidence of our mind.
These Articles, thus set forth and taught, the Remonstrants deem agreeable to the Word of God, tending to edification, and, as regards this argument, sufficient for salvation, so that it is not necessary or edifying to rise higher or to descend deeper.
I might find myself a bit shaky near the end of Article 5, but I do concur with most of Article 5. I think that the term Arminian is misapplied.
Studymore, you are correct that the term Arminian, according to its present use, is misapplied. Historically, the original Arminians were Calvinists who disagreed with their brethren on some particulars. Most people who are called Arminians today -- holding general depravity, falling from grace, and other things -- have a strong semi-Pelagianism mixed into their beliefs.
Matt, I intended to state in my other post that more Calvinistic Baptists that I discuss this with on the internet seem to believe in "gospel regeneration" rather than "spirit regeneration". I don't really know which is most prevalent.
The gospel regeneration teaching is interesting although I may or may not agree! Hahaha... I would like to know more details about it though. I guess the teaching I have seen more prevalent (and I would say that this comes mainly from non-baptistic groups) is that of spirit regeneration.
Robert,
Have you ever studied "Compatibilistic Determinism"? It speaks of a variation of Calvinism in that the person is under God's sovereign will but he makes a voluntary (not free) choice that is influenced by external and internal factors.
Okay...I'm going to bed. After all, it is hard to stay awake at 1:00 in the morning and continually read articles concerning Molinism. I will talk to y'all tomorrow!
Post a Comment