For those of you you understand just by their title, what your theological disposition is, and have discussed this with others; I'm laying out my position first. Primarily because the evidence for either side is weighty and with a particular pre-disposition in mind, it would not be hard to believe one side or the other. I do not personally capitulate to a single theological view point. Primarily because the Bible CLEARLY supports predestination and it CLEARLY supports some form of choice or "free-will". So my personal choice is to take what the Bible says and apply it, to the best of my revelation, current knowledge, desire to serve God and interest in receiving my afterlife reward. I personally believe that I was chosen before the foundation of the world, to be pre-destined to conform to the image of God. That Jesus Christ died for me and my elect brethren, and I believe that I have the free will to serve him and submit to him, but my saving was not of my own doing. Currently there isn't a theological camp that really supports that position.
On a side-note, I think RC Sproul does the best job I've ever heard of explaining the differences and how you can be assured of salvation. I also believe that if people use this issue to divide, that you're wrong for doing so. God knows who you are and as well within his ability to demonstrate through his means what the truth is, and he doesn't need Bible bashing Christians denigrating others just because they don't agree. I've heard it called majoring on the minors.
Onward!!
**Disclaimer**
This is not a theological repository, nor is it authoritative. So please, as with anyone take this with your own Bible reading and apply it over time to see what it means to you.
Theology - the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.
Calvinism and Arminianism are two systems of theology that attempt to explain the relationship between God's sovereignty and humanity's responsibility in relation to salvation. Calvinism is named for John Calvin, a French theologian who lived from 1509 - 1564. Arminianism is named for Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch theologian who lived from 1560 - 1609.
Both systems can be summarized with five points. Calvinism holds to total depravity while Arminianism holds to partial depravity. Total depravity states that every aspect of humanity is tainted by sin, therefore human beings are unable to come to God on their own accord. Partial depravity states that every aspect of humanity is tainted by sin, but not to the extent that they are unable to place faith in God of their own accord.
The reality is that it can be both at the same time. The fundamental problem with both positions is that the presuppose their theological position and the back into that position by finding only the verses that support it, while ignoring the rest. Man is completely tainted by sin and is dead in it. Without the revival from the spirit, which is engineered by God in you, he cannot be known. The biggest downfall of the Armenian side of the debate is that a mans ability to place their faith in God raises into question God's ability to resist sin and elevates mans ability to overcome it. When the facts are that God resists sin and a sin nature absolutely and man absolutely cannot. Without the in-dwelling of the holy spirit man would not seek God. That verse is conclusive enough on its own to demonstrate that God's version of "free-will" is not the same as our version.
Other points of each position:
Calvinism holds to unconditional election while Arminianism holds to conditional election. Unconditional election holds that God elects individuals to salvation based entirely on His will alone, not on anything inherent in the individual. Conditional election holds that God elects individuals to salvation based on His foreknowledge of who will believe in Christ unto salvation.
So again, the fundamental issues here are who and how God is honored. While the concept of election can and is used as a devicive issue - keep in context that election is nothing more than God's plan being carried out. For whom he did foreknow, he did also predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son. In the end, those that are saved are predestined, whether God thought through it, saw your decision, or made the only destination that you would end up in be his kindgdom. Most times people have a problem with that - they can't believe that an Almighty God would allow (insert travesty). In the end, what people come down to is a sense of "fair". People use this term interchangeably with "equal". The reality is that they mean that things that happen in the world aren't equal with one another but I can assure you they are completely fair. Why? Because; we use God's scale of fair, not our own. If he chose not to save me - that is HIS perogative. Not mine. It's HIS creation, his world, his children, his everything.
Onward!
Calvinism holds to limited atonement while Arminianism holds to unlimited atonement. This is the most controversial of the five points. Limited atonement is the belief that Jesus only died for the elect. Unlimited atonement is the belief that Jesus died for all, but that His death is not effectual until a person believes.
In the end, one thing rings true - if Jesus died for the sins of those who reject him, it was certainly a waste, because as you compare the former point, (God knew who would believe) and take it to it's logical conclusion, you realize that this means that on purpose, Jesus died as an effectual waste for those he knew would not believe. So - are we really trying to say that God wasted his son? You decide.
Moving right along...
Calvinism holds to irresistible grace while Arminianism holds to resistible grace. Irresistible grace argues that when God calls a person to salvation, that person will inevitably come to salvation. Resistible grace states that God calls all to salvation, but that many people resist and reject this call.
Paul, Jonah, Moses, Abraham....need I say more? These people didn't want anything to do with God, or his plan. Oh they knew who God was, but they didn't submit to his will, and they vehemently rejected what he wanted. Yet, they came around, Paul most definitely by force. So - does that sound like resistible grace, or irresistible grace. You decide.
Keep on cruisin'
Calvinism holds to perseverance of the saints while Arminianism holds to conditional salvation. Perseverance of the saints refers to the concept that a person who is elected by God will persevere in faith and will never deny Christ or turn away from Him. Conditional salvation is the view that a believer in Christ can, of his/her own free will, turn away from Christ and thereby lose salvation.
You can't unlearn truth. Gravity remains, even if I reject it intellectually, I cannot deny it's force upon me. Isn't God greater than the laws we observe in his creation?
While a 5 point calvanist will tell you that a 5 point Armenian is headed for hell and possibly vice versa - I think you need to gather the facts for yourselves and understand that Jesus Christ is the savior to those who believe in him and abide in him. They come to this point by way of a regenerate heart that God engineers in them. The serve God because that is the only justifiable position for a bond servant. We were bought off the chopping block, our life is not our own. While neither theological camp fully explains everything - each of them are representative of the heart condition that exists in a believer.
My heart tells me that I'm desperately wicked. And if you roll with me for a day - you'd think so to. I don't deserve salvation, I deserve death. I was spared, not because of anything that I am, do or can possibly offer to God. God owns the cattle on a thousand hills - - - - - he also owns the hills.... ; ). My price was so great that in order to save me from myself eternally God sent his Son to me, to do away with sacrifice. I don't deserve it, but I'm grateful and for the sparing of my eternal life - I'm in debt, and I will assuage this debt, with a lifetime of service. I am his, and no one elses. My brow dips to one man and that is Jesus Christ, my God, my Brother, my Father, the spirit with in me. My knee is bent, and my tongue confesses. Jesus Christ is Lord. My opinion is, debating more than that and you're probably creeping into fruitless debate.
4 comments:
Seraphim, thank you for taking the time to explain, point by point, the differences as you see them, between the Calvinist and Armenian theologies. This makes for interesting study and debate between Christians, and I am thankful that there have been those down through the centuries that have studied the minute details of the Bible, to be able to lay out explanations of things that I would never have time to explore on my own. And what this feeble mind of mine is even more grateful for is that God does not judge me according to which theological camp I might align with....or fall somewhere in the cracks of debate between! Even you have said, here, in recent days, that all Christians fall into one camp or the other, whether they realize it or not...but you also have some fine points of difference with some of the details of the way the Calvinist position is generally portrayed. Truth be known, there are probably not two people on the face of the earth who would totally see everything from exactly the same perspective. Even though we might speak the exact same words, those words might have different subtle meanings to us.
I believe those differences of human interpretation occur all across the board, even amongst those who diligently ascribe to a clearly defined catechism, such as the Heidelberg Catechism which the church in which I was raised, and have spent much of my adult life, uses to describe its general theological beliefs and explanations. I have known people all my life who give as much credence and loyalty to that particular catechism as Karin does to the Catholic catechism and writings. I am guessing, but cannot give names and identities because I have not personally had conversations to support this theory, that there are devout Catholics who might disagree with Karin's interpretations of some things, just as I have seen and heard members of the churches I have been a part of over the years debate the fine points of "question and answer such and such". They would both say, "the Catholic Church says in such and such a reference..." and come up with things that seem to disagree because the words have different connotations to the individual people based on their particular life experiences and influences on their spiritual growth and journey. My best guess is that these debates will continue until Christ returns...that is just our nature. And the vast majority of us probably enter the debate primarily to convince others that we are right and they are wrong...and it is a fairly rare person who will change their position once they have reached a conclusion that satisfies their questions. But there is a certain thrill and satisfaction in the contest, and, if handled correctly, can help us to know and understand God more fully. It has been my conclusion that there is a time and place for debate...but I also firmly believe that satan uses that debate among Christians, if it is carried to an extreme, to distract us from our primary mission and focus on this earth...to make Christ known to those around us that do not know Him. Long hours spent in "inside debate" keep us from interacting with other people. It may be our comfort zone...but it is not our mission field! And that is one thing I have come to respect in the discussions that you and Karin have had here. You both will go on at length making your points and rebuttals...but you both seem to know when you have reached an end point, and it is time to close a particular subject.
I have to question one statement that you made...and this is truly not a theological point, but perhaps just a difference in observation and/or exposure.
"While a 5 point calvanist will tell you that a 5 point Armenian is headed for hell and possibly vice versa "
It has not been my experience that this is true. While I know people who hold firmly to their beliefs in these seemingly opposite camps, I can't say I know any who have doubted the salvation or Christianity of another believer who differs in their stance on T.U.L.I.P.(I wonder if the Dutch theologians who came up with those five points had to contrive anything along the way, to be able to come up with an acronym that would help them remember the five points?? :) )
The bottom line is where you stand in your relationship to God through Jesus Christ...not how you happened to view the way the relationship started. YES, I think those views ARE important because it helps us to see who we are as related to God in the whole scheme of things. We need to see who we are in order to recognize our need for the work of Jesus. But I absolutely do not believe that our relationship with God, or where and how we will spend eternity is dependent our stance in a theoligical debate between Christians who have each accepted the atoning work of Christ for themselves.
Related to the whole "election" debate, I am aware of some churches who carry that to the extreme and do nothing to reach out to others with the news of Jesus. Sort of a fatalistic "if you are in, you are in" so we don't need to try to find you. The huge and major issue I have with that approach, which seems to me to be very self-centered, is that it fails, IMO, to follow the example of Jesus and the early church in reaching out in care and love to others. Jesus call us to be light and salt in the world around us. And the purpose of following Christ, again IMO, is not just to assure us of some future destination. Being a Christ follower is not just an insurance policy, it is an intentional lifestyle that brings the love and peace of Christ to our fellow strugglers along the way. We are to bring glory to God in this life, primarily in the way we interact with others, just as much as we will praise Him for eternity when this life fades away. He wants us to have a joy here, on earth, that comes from living in relationship with Him and His people. And we are the mode of sharing that joy, that underlies and overides all of our particular situations and circumstances that this life throws our way. Surely there are deathbed conversions, and those people will share eternity with those who have been Christians all of their earthly life. But I believe that God truly desires for us to have the deep peace and joy that only He can give, while we slug and slosh our way through this lifetime on Earth.
OK...I think I have some other things to do today! Thanks for letting me have my say, Seraphim :)
Marcia, you words resonate like a tested, seasoned violin in the hands of a master.
I do agree, I sound more like a calvanist than anything else - but to summarize the debate, calvanists do believe that Armenians assume too much power in the salvation relationship. I've heard it said, how would you think that you could arbitrarily choose God as though you're somehow equal with him and deserving of his attention? I've also heard people say that one side or the debate is wrong with the insinuation that this error would possibly lead to hell.
The struggle with Calvainism is elitism, the problem with Armenianism is pride... Both are wrong - so that's why I do not capitulate to a single theological stance. Submitting to Christ is the number one goal - if you can't handle that, the rest doesn't matter.
I love your comments and would like to see more.
Thank you to the first and last paragraphs :) My heart's desire and constant prayer is to be molded by the Master...and if that is beginning to show, the glory is all His!! And I appreciate your invitation.
I had also written a couple of paragraphs in response to your middle paragraphs...and was in the process of a last read-through before posting, when my computer inexplicably just shut down. Must be it didn't like what I said, or something. Anyway, this is it for now..not going to try to re-do that from scratch again.
Just have to say, though, that pipsylou is going to wonder why I am commenting here, when I told her the other day that I was frustrated with the way a conversation was going here, so I was going to delete you from my "favorites" list! I did! But I do like the way you challenge my thinking,so I came back :) I doubt that I will enter into serious debate very often...but I will likely open my mouth on occasion. :)
Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now keep it up!
Post a Comment