Arminian or Calvinist?

Recently we at the Paraclete Forum have received several inquiries on Calvinism vs. Arminianism. It seems that quite a few Christians these days are discussing the similarities and differences in these two theological schools of thought, as if they had to end up joining one camp or the other. Here is the latest inquiry:

"I have found your website and the wealth of information you have made available to be a vast help in my continuous journey of faith in Jesus Christ. I have to tell you I can't express enough my thanks also to you for also posting the Ray Stedman links that have helped me beyond belief in my walk.

Today I find myself in my journey concerned a little about this question of Calvinism and Arminianism, I have started reading some of your postings from the A.C. Custance writings, I hope i have his name correct. It has been somewhat helpful to me. But, I have to admit, I am a bit out of my depth when it comes to this portion of my faith. I had wished at times Ray Stedman was still around so I could ask him what his stance would be on this issue, I have come to believe much of what Ray has stated in his book Authentic Christianity that "nothing coming from me, and everything coming from God", could only be stated as a Calvinist. And for this teaching I am grateful, because I have found myself to be in such a depraved state at times that I know there is no other way I could have come to faith but by the power and grace of God.

Some of the questions I have raised have been answer as I continue to read these articles by Arthur Custance. I was hoping you might have an opinion you might be able to share with me on what your beliefs would be on this issue, and also, since it seems from your website and some of my readings over the years that you were relatively close to Pastor Ray that you might have an idea on what his beliefs were on this issue, and how I may find for myself what it is he believed regarding this long standing conflict in the church. I also would like to know what your opinion of the Calvary Chapel Movement is, I have been attending their Church's for a number of years, but have found myself noticing maybe a hint of Arminianism amidst their teachings. I heard the pastor from the Mars Hill church in Seattle (which you seem to recommend) make a comment also about the Calvary Chapel movement being Arminian in their beliefs. I did read the statement of faith by Pastor Chuck Smith regarding the issue at hand, and years ago I thought he put it relatively clear that somewhere in the middle of the two might the truth be found. I had felt at the time and for the past number of years this to be correct enough for me to believe, but recently I find myself troubled over this issue, and would like to resolve it once and for all.

Thanks so much for all your efforts in your website, and I look forward to our meeting in the clouds if not before. Blessings in Christ, Doug."

The tension that we all see in the two positions, Calvinism and its emphasis on God's sovereignty v. Arminianism and its emphasis on freewill, may be one of the greatest examples of a paradox we can find. Obviously, both positions can be well-reasoned and based on tons of scriptures. After all, the Bible is very clear that God created the universe and all that dwell therein. So, BIG is hardly adequate to describe this God. All power and knowledge is derived from Him, our Maker. But, the Bible gives us instance after instance of God offering us choices: Choose this day life or death. And most of us who know God know that even our own faith is a gift from Him. Our salvation is a gift, our redemption is a gift, and our knowledge of Him is a gift (a revelation from God). And, we also know that our stupid decisions can get us in a lot of trouble.

IMHO, the first step for me is to simply come to the realization that I am a human being, limited in knowledge and very prone to error. I cannot trust my own heart sometimes (which the Prophet Jeremiah points out: "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?" As we grow in maturity in Jesus, we can learn that trust is a very key component to this all—Paul clearly writes that we should not trust in man, but trust in God. So, it seems that we don't really need to trust in ourselves, but the one who is the Author and Finisher of our faith.

I've also come to understand that my choices are all limited in some way, as well. I cannot choose to wake up tomorrow and be 25 years old. I can't take thought and add to my height or my intelligence, or to think my way into knowing everything, just like God. Knowledge, at times, can make one arrogant—and we would come right back to the primal sin of pride—to be like God, the sin of Lucifer, and the sin of Adam and Eve. No, I will never be like God, and from the first Adam, our job is to trust in the one who is worthy of trust, the only one and the only God.

I can also tell you that the Calvary Chapel position is certainly not Arminian. It is an attempt to embrace both sides and the apparent paradox. The problems appear to be in the extreme views.  For example, an extreme view of Calvinism makes it very close to absolute determinism or a kind of fatalism, that our decisions cannot possibly change anything. God chooses us, and his grace is irresistible. So, it is not possible to resist or fight against the sovereign will of God. I heard RC Sproul, (a marvelous theologian on the more extreme side of Calvinism), on the radio the other day. He was discussing all the different kinds of wills that God has, sovereign will, permissive will, prescriptive will, on and on. It was a challenge following all the various ways one can look at God's will. But, I find it very difficult to think that this type of esoteric philosophical debate is available to all human beings. Didn't Jesus have particular sympathy for little children?  We are to be like children, and trust our loving Father.

I am of the belief that the Gospel is so deep that (old line) elephants can swim in it, but babies can never drown in it. The elegance of the Gospel story, that Jesus died for my sins, is the kind of elegance and sophistication that philosophers and theologians can chew on for their entire lifetimes, but it is simple enough for the uneducated person to grasp in all its glory. "For God so loved the world..." and that includes the educated as well as the uneducated, the literate and illiterate.

Well, maybe God has a dozen different kinds of will, and when He says that He desires that none will perish, that's the kind of will that does not determine my choice. But, when Jesus said to His disciples for the first time, "Follow me and I will make you fishers of men," that would be a good time to follow Him. Even Jesus had one follower who was obviously not like the others. Was that God's fault? Maybe be yes, maybe no. Does it change the value of His death and the importance of His resurrection? Absolutely not.

The Arminian side, in its more extreme form, says that, in order to give human beings a true choice, God cannot see the future. (He didn't make us little robots that continually walk around giving Him praise and adoration. God seeks fellowship, not automatons.) For, if God can see the future, then the future could not be any other way. If God could see a flower bloom at 6 o'clock tomorrow morning, than that flower must bloom at 6 o'clock tomorrow morning. So, say, God sees that you, Doug, make a choice to follow Him ten years from now; His vision of the future means that you will, indeed, make a decision to follow Him. In a sense, His knowledge of the future would cause your decision to occur because it could not be otherwise—He saw it! In the Arminian view, God is running along the corridors of time (another well-known saying) with you; so, therefore, He is bound by His own laws of Space and Time. He can only be in one place at one time. In this view, omnipresence can only refer to place, and not time, with serious ramifications. (Omnipotence also has to be seen in that context.)

I had a conversation with a group of devoted Arminians, and they spoke of God's omniscience, but not in any way that I was used to (which does not make them automatically wrong). God's knowledge is inexhaustible; He knows all things. However, they added that He only knows what is knowable, and future events are not knowable. (Much of pop psychology confirms this, in a way, that we cannot know what a human being will do next.) They suggested that God's mind is like a humungous super-computer that can figure out all possibilities and probabilities. That's the only way they could see that God could have possibly spoken through the Prophets, e.g., predicting by name that Cyrus would be the person who began the return to Jerusalem by exiled Jews.

Well, I hope it's obvious that this extreme view overlooks the character of God as revealed in scripture quite a bit. The God of Arminianism is finite, a lot like me. How can God exist before the beginning if we can trace His existence to some kind of beginning? "In the beginning, God..." certainly implies that God was already there at the beginning of time—or was that only the beginning of His creation? Did God suddenly spring into existence? My Bible tells me that God exists from the vanishing point (infinite past) to the vanishing point (infinite future). After all, He revealed to Moses that His name is "I am that I am." He doesn't have a name by which we have to distinguish Him from other gods or goddesses: He simple exists, always has, and always will, despite what some recent philosophers say (that God is dead).

The Arminian position appears rational in the sense that all points are reasoned, but it doesn't appear to me that the reasoning is based on Scripture first, and that all the inferences are made accordingly. On the contrary, it is a type of reasoning that seeks support for its premises, which is quite the opposite.

So, we bounce back to the Calvinist view that God is outside of time. He sees all things at once. It's like viewing a parade, but being able to see the head and the tail at the same time. Look, there! Doug just tripped on his shoelaces! If God sees you trip in the middle of the parade, He obviously did not cause you to trip; He just saw you trip. We are the ones marching along the corridors of Time, but God views Time in a much different way. (See http://ldolphin.org/time.html). Chuck Smith has a similar view.

But, apparently, God still has chosen to respect our choices. Otherwise, how could a just and merciful God justify anyone going to Hell? If God's will is the only thing that we had to consider, then we wind up being in the position of saying that God created billions of people just to rot in Hell and experience eternal torment. That God is both small and mean. Calvinism, too, starts out with a set of premises and deductively backs into many of its conclusions, having to reinterpret the many scriptures that point to choice and freewill.

In my experience, I know many people who have heard the Gospel and flat out rejected it—it's too hot, it's too cold, it's too simple, it's too complicated. They consciously reject the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. "There can't be one absolute truth, or one true religion. How narrow-minded and intolerant!" They believe that all so-called religions say the same basic thing. Obviously, most of these people have never really examined the claims of Jesus nor the claims of other religious leaders. But, anyone who exists has to wonder where they came from; and, we all die, so it makes sense that we should ask sincerely what's gonna happen when we die. As bad as our corporate testimony can be sometimes, there are also the eyewitness accounts of millions of people who have met God in Jesus, who have experienced His grace, mercy, and love—yet we, just like Jesus, are subject to the scorn and ridicule of people who think they're too smart to believe such a simple story about a carpenter from Nazareth, the Messiah, and King of the Jews. How could one man's death pay for my sins? What is sin, anyway?

Well, if the world rejects Christ, then it is certainly not God's fault. He thought of a plan that anyone and everyone could figure out. All you have to do is seek, and you'll find; knock, and the door will be opened unto you. Believe, and have everlasting life. I know lots of people who will know that God's judgment will be absolutely fair, even if they did reject His love for their entire lives. After all, God did say through Isaiah, "Come, let us reason together."

So, in my opinion, the middle point is a good place to be. I grow everyday in my knowledge of the greatness of the Living God, His mercy, and His amazing grace. I also find that I reluctantly learn to trust and obey. The world, my carnal nature, the real enemy, all the things that the Bible teaches us, act in me. "O wretched man that I am!" I'm so glad that God is there, that He is faithful when I am faithless, to pick me up when I trip, and to set me on His path, the narrow path.

My personal conclusion is that many people want to follow one position or the other to its logical extreme. But, the extreme Arminian has to overlook an awful lot of evidence, just as the extreme Calvinist has to interpret every time the word "choice" enters the text. If my choice has nothing whatsoever to do with accepting the gift of the cross, then what possible effect could evangelism have? Why would Jesus tell us to go into all the world and preach the Gospel? What's the point?

Right smack in the middle of the Bible is a very curious book called the Song of Songs. It details (rather graphically) a romantic relationship between Solomon and the Shulamite woman. Jews have traditionally interpreted it as a picture of God (Y-H-V-H) and Israel, His bride. (But she, as a nation, rejected her beloved. Just read the prophets.) Christians have interpreted it as a picture of Jesus and His Bride, the church (the people, not the steeple). Jesus spoke of wedding feasts, and we have that picture pretty much throughout scriptures.

However, how does one become a bride? Doesn't she have to say, "Yes"? Without her consent, there is no true marriage. Many are called, but few are chosen...curious way to put it, no?

So, out I go into the highways of my life. I try to have a reason for this hope that is in me. And, I will tell people about the wedding feast of the Lamb. Unless they're invited, they simply won't know, and they won't have anything to respond to. But, I also know that it is the Holy Spirit who draws all men to Jesus. So, I don't even have to trust my inept ways of communicating, or all the times that I say the wrong thing or nothing at all. We are all called to repentance, a repentence of the heart. After that, we learn to trust and obey.

I don't suppose I've cleared up anything. But, I can tell you that once you stop trying to know everything and be like God, it does kinda become easier.

Feel free to write me back and express exactly where your problems are. This was just a general overview. Sorry it's so long. Blessings, Fred

[Its extreme Calvinism forces it to have a gospel only for the elect. Its deadly legalism permeates its entire teaching on the Christian life and sanctification. Its teaching on regeneration and saving faith takes away from the sinner’s personal, God-given responsibility to believe the gospel. Its emphasis on Lordship salvation complicates and corrupts the gospel message by requiring the sinner to perform additional acts of surrender and obedience in order to be saved. This detracts from the simple gospel of the grace of God which Paul preached and defended with his life.]

Yes indeed. I have found that extreme Calvinism can be quite disheartening as so many verses teach of the grace of God and His will that all sinners would come to the knowledge of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, a bride must say yes to the bridegroom to be a bride.

Short answer: your great-grandfather Adam

The following is the section on free will from the London Baptist Confession of 1689, a Calvinist confession most Baptists believed up until early 20th century.

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 )

The classic answer is found in the Garden of Eden account.

The world we have today represents a second chance for an all-sinner humanity.

Whodunit? Humanity as a group allowed the devil to do it to them by collectively swallowing his lie of being their own moral masters (i.e. “knowing good and evil.”) Yes I know this would require a consensus of the souls of all humanity, but that appears to be exactly what has happened. That is how Paul speaks of it: “we sinned” in Adam. This put us in a position of being God’s enemies.

If things were left at that, of course we would all go to hell. But a second chance is offered through Christ.

That does not answer the question at all. The question is: Does God want (desire, predestine) some people to go to hell or not?

If not, then Calvinism, which states that only *some* are predestined by God’s will to be saved, makes no sense at all; because that means that God *wants* some people to be damned.

If so, then it must have been — by necessity! — God’s will that man fall from grace; because without sin, He could not justify damning anybody.

Nobody that I know — Calvinist or Armenian — would debate much of what you cited from the the London Baptist Confession of 1689, that Adam fell from grace, and the consequences of that fall, that all men thereafter were born into sin and in need of salvation.

To reiterate, the question is: Does God want (desire, will, relish the fact) some people to be eternally damned or not?

Or, in other words, did an Armenian God weep when man fell from grace; or did a Calvinist God rejoice, because he *needed* the fall in order to separate Himself eternally from those He predestined to damnation?

Part of the confusion may arise from the eternal nature of mankind. I.e. there already is a part of humanity that “will not fit” in this universe.

The rules we see here as little hunks of fragile meat and bone aren’t what we might see from a vantage point outside the universe. A choice that we see a person as having made at, say, age 45 may have a counterpart outside the universe, where the rules are different and even the logical order of events does not need to follow the time line of the universe.

One thing this would explain very well would be deja vu. We recognized that we knew something was coming, once we encountered it.

But I don’t think we should dwell on such theories any longer than needed to perceive that they are “thought experiment” proofs that the dual realities of choice and destiny need not be mutually exclusive. God never wanted us to speculate on the realm that the occult appears to promise a view upon. We have quite enough duty to fulfill here, and we should shun pride at any particular theory.

A more directly biblical take: the psalmist wrote that the knowledge involved was “too wonderful” for him, seeing God enclose him round about and promising to welcome him into glory.

The healthy way to live the paradox is not to fret about it (another thing forbidden in the scripture) but to strive to choose the right things (starting with accepting the salvational offer of Christ) and then watch your destiny unfold as you do. You’ll get buffeted by Satan, will slip and fall from time to time as your spirit awakes further and further, but you’ll never be conquered.

Anyhow that’s how I pays my money and I takes my choice.

You are asking questions theologians have written long books about and pastors preach entire sermon series on. You can’t expect me to answer them to your satisfaction in a comment box. I don’t want to be dismissive or rude because you are asking good questions. That said, based on all of your comments I know you don’t understand what Calvinists actually believe. The truth is this: I’ve been right where you are.

For years every time the subject of Calvinism came up I had a list of pet verses I would throw out (2 Peter 3:9 was high on the list) and I then imagined I had said all that needed to be said to toss Calvinism into the trash bin. I now look back at my old self with shame. Not because I was wrong. I wasn’t raised in the reformed world and there wasn’t a single person around to teach me anything different, so I’m not ashamed I didn’t know. I am ashamed because I realize I vigorously defended a system of belief without really wrestling with the Scriptures myself. I was well into my thirties before I ever gave the matter it’s proper attention. Up until that point I had blindly accepted what I was taught and I utterly believed it without being a Berean.

One day a friend lovingly confronted me with the truths of God’s sovereignty and, after we debated the matter back and forth, it began to dawn on me that I was dead certain I was right about something I had not really studied. I had adopted the views of people I loved and trusted, but I had not done the heavy lifting for myself. It hit me like a ton of bricks when I realized that everything I understood about the Doctrines of Grace came from those who denied them. In other words, every thing I had ever read on the matter started with the presupposition that Calvinism was wrong. I had never let Calvinists speak for themselves. I had never wrestled with their view of the Scriptures.

I can try to answer questions, but I’m not willing to debate Calvinism here. I don’t have the energy and I don’t know that it’s all that productive. There are lots of online places where that battle rages. But I will say this much, I have yet to find even one person arguing against Reformed Theology who isn’t arguing against a caricature. I rarely find anyone on the other side who seems to even understand what we believe. I cringe because I know that was me for years. When the Lord finally opened my eyes, it changed my life and I will never be the same. I had never had real assurance until I understood God’s sovereignty in salvation. I could write an entire book on what that understanding did for me and ultimately what it did for my wife and children.

I am going out-of-town in the morning, but if you really want to understand what we believe, let me know and I can point you to excellent online resources.

God bless

Thanks for the very thoughtful reply. I’ve been-there-done-that too, but from a different angle. For me it was always “whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” Then I moved to a new town, finally found a church that taught that same message, and when a new pastor came on board, the place when Calvinist. Thirty years as a Baptist, and I had never even heard of Calvinism, nor Armenianism.

I have to say, Calvinism, at least the way my church was teaching it, threw me into a tailspin. Crisis even. They had me believing that even if I wanted to be saved, I might not be saved, because, well, after all, God is sovereign and I, as a man, have no free will to choose. He chose me or He rejected me, from even before creation itself, and I have no say in that matter. (But not to worry, of course, because if you are here at this church then that’s evidence He’s “calling” you. So keep your attendance — and those tithes! — up.)

From my posts tonight, you’re aware that I’ve come out of that now. I reject that teaching, as I cannot make it square with my reading of the Word.

Maybe that is not your version of Calvinism. On the other hand, the question I posted to you (Does God want or will or take satisfaction in condemning people to eternal damnation) is not a complicated whole-lotta-gray-area-there question. It is, in all honestly, a simple Yes or No question.

Sure, whether you start from the Yes or No position, the theology can get really complicated. But it all really does boil down to Yes or No — does God want ANYBODY to go to hell?

Safe travels. See you on the next Calvin/Arminian thread.

“They had me believing that even if I wanted to be saved, I might not be saved”

The non-elect don’t seek Him, they don’t want Him. We know that from Romans 3. We also know that Christ promised that ALL that Father gives the Son SHALL come. And then as if to answer the inevitable objections to what He had just said He continued, “and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.” If you come to Christ, if you seek Christ, you are elect and you shall be saved. It’s an iron-clad promise.

“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”

I can point to hundreds of passages today, but what first got my attention was John 3, John 6, John 10, and John 17 that persuaded me.

Before I was a Calvinist I utterly believed in Jesus and the Bible, but I didn’t believe in me enough to make a decision. I always had this nagging sense that I wasn’t sincere enough, but how do you measure your own sincerity? My theology put it in my hands instead of the hands of the Savior. In Psalms 110 we read “thy people Shall be willing in the day of Thy power.” What a blessing it was when I understood it was His work in me that had made me willing. And if He made me willing, He would keep me willing.

Take care, FRiend. I must go to bed. I’ve got a long drive ahead of me in only a few hours. I have stayed up way too late taking care of a few last minute things and listening to some of my favorite hymns.

The problem with Arminianism is a wrong view of Sin. Rather than view that folks are "Dead in Tresspasses and Sin", Arminianism views folks as alive and making choices. It simply believes that man, by default, cannot be in that bad of a condition, cannot be that helpless, and cannot be bound up in that much depravity to Sin.

As I tell my Arminian friends: Your problem with Calvinism is not predestination or the limited atonement, but with a faulty view of Sin. Men are "Dead in Tresspasses and Sin" just as the Apostle Paul says.

You will never understand these things unless you embrace what God says about Sin.

Hey Chaplain! Did you see this thread?

A year or two ago on a different thread I asked you point blank if you were Calvinist or Arminian in your belief. As I recall you described yourself as “Calvarminian” or something to that effect.

As I have meditated on this whole paradox I have come to appreciate your position more and more. I think I may have become one of them myself!

The writer referenced in the OP does a good job of grappling with this issue, in my opinion.

FRegards, and Blessings

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.