This week, on the Georgetown College Campus on the 7th and 9th, we had a discussion on the topics of Calvinism (Predestination) and Arminianism (Free Will). These discussions were very good and thought provoking. Now, as most who read know that I am a Calvinist, therefore I hold to Predestination. I am wondering what you are and if you could give a short statement, with biblical support if possible, why you hold to this complex idea--in either direction.
I'll bite. I used to be a bit of an open-theist but now I'm probably somewhere between Calvinist and Arminian but closer to Arminian. Calvinism and I just don't mix well.
ReplyDeleteHey Josh, thanks for commenting. Now I'm pretty set in my ways that God is choosing His elect, but this is one of those doctrines that is very difficult to grasp; not just Calvinism, but even Arminism. I think I am becoming less dogmatic to its importance, though what one thinks on this issue will dramaticly affect the rest of their thinking and understanding of God's Word.
ReplyDeleteI'll put it out there: I find it hard to escape a feeling of injustice that accompanies an idea that God creates some people to be damned. I've had plenty of Calvinists try to explain it away with a variety of divine command ethics or arguments that I misunderstand but let me assure you that I've read Calvin and I can agree with him on some things but I cannot reconcile dual-predestination with inarnational message of the gospel. I don't have anything (well, besides a few jokes) against Calvinists who have read their material on both sides and have made the decisions but I fear that sometimes it is as much a decision made of fear as Arminianism often is.
ReplyDeleteFear? Hum, I'm not sure what you mean by fear (like fear of others or fear of God). I guess fear of God is one of the reason I am a Calvinist. It is a hard thing to understand and though I'm 100 percent a Calvinist I struggle with certian issues (such as the damning of some). I have understanding to help me with this, but they don't fill all the gaps. But, at the same time I find it more convincing then Arminianism because I find the Scripture to show God's sovereignty over all things. And, if God wanted to he could have made everything perfect (which He did) and kept it that way (so that all would be sinless.) He could have by not putting the character in Satan which allowed him to fall, and the tree in the garden which opened our eyes. And this wouldn't have been forced love (as some say) because it will would have come out of our freedom, we just wouldn't have known any different. So, I guess I'm a Calvinist because I have to be because that is what Scripture shows (atleast to me).
ReplyDeleteThanks for the further insight
I'm a moderate calvinist who sympathizes with open-theism.
ReplyDeleteYou like moderate dont you red.hot? Lol
ReplyDeleteYes I do, now that you mention it! Haha! Actually, I was referring to the term used by Norman Geissler. I think he articulates it far better than I, at least, how I understand things now. I may be wrong, and I'm ok with that.
ReplyDeletePeace
I've not read Calvin. Haven't read the other guy, either. In my reading of Ephesians, however, I do try to remember that Paul isn't addressing independent, autonomous, individual, decision-making "selves."
ReplyDeleteThank you, Enlightenment lenses.
I think if we consider that he was talking about the election of the Church as a corporate Body, and we realize that Paul's not asking (or answering) questions about "individual salvation" here, lots of that stuff goes away.
Kyle, that is a good point. I'm kind of new to the thought of God not electing people, but rather the Church. Therefore He didn't predestined individuals, they chose Him freely. But He did predestine the Church to carry on certian things. I think that is kind of how it goes. Like I said, it was only a couple of months ago that I heard this way of thought.
ReplyDeleteBut that doesn't really deal with the TULIP issue (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverence of the saints). It is an interesting idea, but it don't really deal with the issue at hand, unless your using it to argue the free will of man, therefore Arminianism. Good thought though
I believe in the corporate election of the church, the bride of Christ. I also believe that individuals choose to participate in God's redemptive institute, as well as they may. I also believe that humans are spiritually depraved. I guess that kinda outs me in between the both of you.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. You are like many in the church I guess. Believing in God's election, but not certian to what extent it goes. The primary question at hand is free will. Does man have the ability to chose Christ? Now most, Calvinist and Arminist alike would say no. Here is where the line is drawn. Calvin said that man does not and therefore God gives him grace which is irresistible, so that the man is therefore automatically saved (this is the view I hold). But Arminius said that it was grace which brought man back to the ability to make a free joice, therefore his freedom of will still being intact. So the main difference between the two is whether or not God only gives grace to those He has chose (and they will automatically follow in obediance) or does he give it to all and lets them decide for themselves.
I understand the two, their thought, and their followers ideas. And I am not in either camp. I kinda like the anabaptist approach, but I can't endorse all of it. I am just a big mess of tradition(s).
ReplyDeleteHey Mike,
ReplyDeleteI dont know much about the anabaptist so Ill have to look into it. Your a mess of a bunch of traditions huh? Well, I guess you can start your own, lol. God bless bro.
Remember we Arminians do believe in predestination, just in different terms. And didn't the Mr. A believe he was a Calvinist till the day he died? Also let us not forget the other Calvinists such as the Reformed Pieitists who believed in predestination just had problems with the 2x or nothing stuff. Then again if we take Calvin's thought as seen in the final form of the Institutes of Christian Religion then he too might have some problem with the current Calvinist. Then again he does seem to support a double predestination though never says it that way expclicitly. He seems to skirts it intentionally.
ReplyDeleteWow I just rambled.
My main problem with the current state of Calvinism is that it presupposes in most instance the knowledge of God being as if a memory/in the past. I tend to prefer a present active view of God's knowledge. In other words he is actively present in all points in time while also being outside and beyond time. So this might sound like a bunch philosophical mumbo jumbo but it is important because how we view how God relates to creation directly affects nearly every portion our theology about Him.
ReplyDeleteBen, I'm not real sure what you are talking about in who Mr. A was, and I know nothing about “Reformed Pieitists” and “their problems with the 2x or nothing stuff.” If you would like to comment on this or email me privately I would like to hear what you have to say on these two issues.
ReplyDeleteAs to your comment on God's activity in the timeline of history, I would have to say I agree with you on how you see it, I think. I think that God is actively at work in the present. Yet, at the same time He is working all things toward His purpose. I don't know of any Calvinist who thinks of God as being seperated from the present. But at the same time He does see things that have not yet taken place. I don't think of this as a memory as we might think, but like you said, "[H]e is actively present in all points in time while also being outside and beyond time." I don't think either of us would call ourselves 'open-theist'. Thanks for the commment.
If you IM shoot me up on MSN @ rhematos@msn.com or on AOL @ rhematos . I know funky screennames. Remnants from my Penteostal days.
ReplyDeleteOh I do agree with you that the Calvinists do believe God is present at all points in time and is active.
Anyhow I look forward to hearing from ya through Instant Messaging channels.
"Mr. A" was Jacobus Arminius. Sometimes I refer to him as "Mr. A". Likewise sometimes I refer to Calvin as "Mr. C"
ReplyDeleteGot yeah, I should have made the connection, my fault.
ReplyDeleteJust found some good Calvinism Jokes at http://www.yankeejokes.com
ReplyDelete