Calvinism vs. Arminianism: Good article

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
S

sparkman

Guest
#1
Here's a good article on Gotquestions.org concerning Calvinism vs. Arminianism.

One of the biggest aggravations on discussing this issue is that people who try to discuss it don't understand the other viewpoint and are arguing against a straw-man. Those who discuss it should read a good book by someone from the other side of the argument before they discuss it.

On the Reformed side (monergism or Calvinist), one of the best books is "Potter's Freedom" by James White. I'd highly suggest reading it, along with the Scriptures referenced, in order to understand the monergist or Calvinist view.

I will leave it up to the Arminian side (synergism; some call them Semi-Pelagian) to provide references to their favorite authors in this regard.

It should be noted that Pelagians, another group, are not evangelical and should not even be considered Christian. They are not evangelical because they reject justification by faith alone, and this is a FUNDAMENTAL point of evangelical Christianity. Any group that doesn't acknowledge justification by faith and imputed righteousness isn't evangelical by definition. They also deny original sin and substitutionary atonement, and are often open theists and sinless perfectionists, and Arminians in general would not agree with any of those positions.

Both Arminians and Calvinists acknowledge justification by faith and imputed righteousness. If you don't know what these words mean, you should be researching them and understanding them.

Here's the article:

Question: "Calvinism vs. Arminianism - which view is correct?"

Answer:
Calvinism and Arminianism are two systems of theology that attempt to explain the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility in the matter of 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 the total depravity of man while Arminianism holds to partial depravity. Calvinism’s doctrine of total depravity states that every aspect of humanity is corrupted 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 human beings are unable to place faith in God of their own accord. Note: classical Arminianism rejects “partial depravity” and holds a view very close to Calvinistic “total depravity” (although the extent and meaning of that depravity are debated in Arminian circles). In general, Arminians believe there is an “intermediate” state between total depravity and salvation. In this state, made possible by prevenient grace, the sinner is being drawn to Christ and has the God-given ability to choose salvation.

Calvinism includes the belief that election is unconditional, while Arminianism believes in conditional election. Unconditional election is the view that God elects individuals to salvation based entirely on His will, not on anything inherently worthy in the individual. Conditional election states that God elects individuals to salvation based on His foreknowledge of who will believe in Christ unto salvation, thereby on the condition that the individual chooses God.

Calvinism sees the atonement as limited, while Arminianism sees it as unlimited. 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 receives Him by faith.

Calvinism includes the belief that God’s grace is irresistible, while Arminianism says that an individual can resist the grace of God. 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.

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 not permanently 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. Note - many Arminians deny "conditional salvation" and instead hold to "eternal security."

So, in the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, who is correct? It is interesting to note that in the diversity of the body of Christ, there are all sorts of mixtures of Calvinism and Arminianism. There are five-point Calvinists and five-point Arminians, and at the same time three-point Calvinists and two-point Arminians. Many believers arrive at some sort of mixture of the two views. Ultimately, it is our view that both systems fail in that they attempt to explain the unexplainable. Human beings are incapable of fully grasping a concept such as this. Yes, God is absolutely sovereign and knows all. Yes, human beings are called to make a genuine decision to place faith in Christ unto salvation. These two facts seem contradictory to us, but in the mind of God they make perfect sense.

Link to Article:

GotQuestions.org - Question of the Week

Bibliography:

Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views by Hunt & White
Chosen But Free, revised edition: A Balanced View of God's Sovereignty and Free Will by Norm Geisler
The Potter's Freedom by James White
Why I Am Not a Calvinist by Walls & Dongell
Why I Am Not an Arminian by Peterson & Williams

Good debates on Calvinism vs. Arminianism:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKnzCuBYVJm4uZUj-kjLXyn5ar75VUl1z
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
689
113
#2
Calvin derived his theology from Augustine, whose theology was heavily influenced by the Manicheans, a gnostic sect that he was a member of for nearly a decade before becoming a Christian. All of the church fathers before Augustine were more inline with Arminius than they were with Calvin.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#3
what if we are neither? why do we have to discuss calvin or arminian anyway, they have been dead for how long now?
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
#5
what if we are neither? why do we have to discuss calvin or arminian anyway, they have been dead for how long now?
You will be shoe horned into one camp or the other. Resistance is futile you will be assimilated.

Doubtful that many have even read what these men wrote. They read only what others have written about them.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
S

sparkman

Guest
#6
Calvin derived his theology from Augustine, whose theology was heavily influenced by the Manicheans, a gnostic sect that he was a member of for nearly a decade before becoming a Christian. All of the church fathers before Augustine were more inline with Arminius than they were with Calvin.
What specific points of Gnosticism do you think Calvinists hold? I have heard this claim from Pelagians, but I find no correlation.

Usually they try to claim that Calvinists advocate freely sinning, and I have found that to be a total misrepresentation of their position. They are as concerned about sinning as Arminians.

If you can list your reasoning for comparing Gnostics with Calvinists, I'd appreciate it.

I've seen this claim mainly from the Pelagian Jesse Morrell, who is a heretic of great proportion that goes on college campuses and talks about sexual issues in explicit detail with college students, making accusations about them being homosexuals, masturbators, and wh*res. His theology is so messed up it's pitiful..he's a Pelagian-Finneyist who teaches moral government theology which denies core doctrines of Christianity, besides being an open theist and near sinless perfectionist. I personally think he and his posse are a bunch of sexual perverts who are masquerading as Christians.
 
C

Chuckt

Guest
#7
Here's a good article on Gotquestions.org concerning Calvinism vs. Arminianism.
I'm not a Calvinist.

I've been reading "The Gnostic Origins of Calvinism" by Ken Johnson Th.D.

[video=youtube;c59ip-iDORI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c59ip-iDORI[/video]
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
689
113
#8
What specific points of Gnosticism do you think Calvinists hold? I have heard this claim from Pelagians, but I find no correlation.

Usually they try to claim that Calvinists advocate freely sinning, and I have found that to be a total misrepresentation of their position. They are as concerned about sinning as Arminians.

If you can list your reasoning for comparing Gnostics with Calvinists, I'd appreciate it.

I've seen this claim mainly from the Pelagian Jesse Morrell, who is a heretic of great proportion that goes on college campuses and talks about sexual issues in explicit detail with college students, making accusations about them being homosexuals, masturbators, and wh*res. His theology is so messed up it's pitiful..he's a Pelagian-Finneyist who teaches moral government theology which denies core doctrines of Christianity, besides being an open theist and near sinless perfectionist. I personally think he and his posse are a bunch of sexual perverts who are masquerading as Christians.
For starters, total depravity vs. free will. Calvin and the gnostics held belief in the former in common; all of the church fathers before Augustine held the latter view. When Augustine converted to Christianity, he argued for free will against the Manichean gnostics, but afterwards when arguing with the Pelagians, he reverted to his Manichean past and argued against free will. That view was incorporated into his enduring theology that Calvin relied upon heavily to create his more extreme version.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#9
What specific points of Gnosticism do you think Calvinists hold? I have heard this claim from Pelagians, but I find no correlation.

Usually they try to claim that Calvinists advocate freely sinning, and I have found that to be a total misrepresentation of their position. They are as concerned about sinning as Arminians.

If you can list your reasoning for comparing Gnostics with Calvinists, I'd appreciate it.

I've seen this claim mainly from the Pelagian Jesse Morrell, who is a heretic of great proportion that goes on college campuses and talks about sexual issues in explicit detail with college students, making accusations about them being homosexuals, masturbators, and wh*res. His theology is so messed up it's pitiful..he's a Pelagian-Finneyist who teaches moral government theology which denies core doctrines of Christianity, besides being an open theist and near sinless perfectionist. I personally think he and his posse are a bunch of sexual perverts who are masquerading as Christians.
He is on a Gnostic rant, has been for weeks. I would just let it go..
 
C

Chuckt

Guest
#10
[video=youtube;3bgcF0ZMJ40]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bgcF0ZMJ40[/video]
 
S

sparkman

Guest
#11
My understanding is that a well known Arminian apologist stated that Calvinists have the superior hand when it comes to exegetical (scriptural) basis, but that Arminians have the superior hand when it comes to philosophy.

Through simply reading the Scriptures, I was convicted of "Calvinism" before I even heard the word. I was talking to my pastor about what I had discovered from reading Scripture, and he said "That's Calvinism"..and then ceased to criticize it.

Well, if Calvinism is simply what the Bible teaches about salvation, I'm a Calvinist. I don't read with my hands over my eyes when I see the words "predestined", "elected" and "chosen". I also think it's nonsense to say that God chooses the elect based on their choice of him.

What I find especially abominable are the claims that God gives up on those he has saved and covenanted with. Eternal security is what caused me to leave that fellowship. I was asked to be part of their evangelizing team after being there about 15 years, and I decided I could not do that because I wasn't comfortable with bringing another person into a fellowship where eternal security was not taught. So, I had to ask myself why I was there if I didn't think it was a healthy environment for others.

I suppose, though, I could handle an Arminian church that held to eternal security. Eternal security is where I draw the line.

:)
 
C

Chuckt

Guest
#12
I suppose, though, I could handle an Arminian church that held to eternal security. Eternal security is where I draw the line.
Why? Why do you draw the line?

(I'm editing my message. I see why I misunderstood.)
 
S

sparkman

Guest
#13
For starters, total depravity vs. free will. Calvin and the gnostics held belief in the former in common; all of the church fathers before Augustine held the latter view. When Augustine converted to Christianity, he argued for free will against the Manichean gnostics, but afterwards when arguing with the Pelagians, he reverted to his Manichean past and argued against free will. That view was incorporated into his enduring theology that Calvin relied upon heavily to create his more extreme version.
I think a lot of this comes from Pelagian-Finneyists like Jesse Morrell, Kerrigan Skelly, and Moral Government Theology heretics. I don't trust any of those guys.
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
689
113
#14
What specific points of Gnosticism do you think Calvinists hold? I have heard this claim from Pelagians, but I find no correlation.

Usually they try to claim that Calvinists advocate freely sinning, and I have found that to be a total misrepresentation of their position. They are as concerned about sinning as Arminians.

If you can list your reasoning for comparing Gnostics with Calvinists, I'd appreciate it.

I've seen this claim mainly from the Pelagian Jesse Morrell, who is a heretic of great proportion that goes on college campuses and talks about sexual issues in explicit detail with college students, making accusations about them being homosexuals, masturbators, and wh*res. His theology is so messed up it's pitiful..he's a Pelagian-Finneyist who teaches moral government theology which denies core doctrines of Christianity, besides being an open theist and near sinless perfectionist. I personally think he and his posse are a bunch of sexual perverts who are masquerading as Christians.
btw, I don't know exactly what Morrell believes, but I don't think that he considers himself Pelagian. I am a bit suspect about his characterization of the issue of the pre-Augustine church fathers stance on free will, but he has done a very good job of documenting the connection between the gnostics and Augustine/Calvin, and the early church fathers' advocacy for free will.
 
S

sparkman

Guest
#15
Why? Why do you draw the line?
Scripture clearly teaches eternal security. I don't hang around with cowards and doubters who don't respect God's sovereignty and the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. Their mentality is like that of the 10 cowardly spies in Numbers 13, and the cowardly Israelite army when facing Goliath. I hang out with people like Joshua, Caleb, and David. The focus of Calvinists is on God's Sovereignty.
 
Nov 22, 2015
20,436
1,430
0
#16
Here is a view on the subject..nice and quick one....6 minutes....not bad for a supposedly complex issue.....


[video=youtube;d4Ewsad_yEk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4Ewsad_yEk[/video]
 
S

sparkman

Guest
#17
btw, I don't know exactly what Morrell believes, but I don't think that he considers himself Pelagian. I am a bit suspect about his characterization of the issue of the pre-Augustine church fathers stance on free will, but he has done a very good job of documenting the connection between the gnostics and Augustine/Calvin.
He was trained by Moral Government Theology teachers. His view of the atonement is not penal substitutionary atonement. He teaches that Christ died as a moral example, and not a penal substitutionary atonement. He does not believe in imputed righteousness and justification by faith alone. All these things are fundamental to the gospel message.

He quotes from Pelagius and also from Charles Finney, who was in essence a Pelagian.

By the way, I was on a facebook group with Morrell and a bunch of his Pelagian-Finneyist buddies. I was shocked at the nastiness of their behavior, after seeing videos of them preaching to college kids. They are vile and I'm ashamed that college kids see such bad examples of Christianity. But, I guess there are wolves everywhere.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#18
My understanding is that a well known Arminian apologist stated that Calvinists have the superior hand when it comes to exegetical (scriptural) basis, but that Arminians have the superior hand when it comes to philosophy.

Through simply reading the Scriptures, I was convicted of "Calvinism" before I even heard the word. I was talking to my pastor about what I had discovered from reading Scripture, and he said "That's Calvinism"..and then ceased to criticize it.

Well, if Calvinism is simply what the Bible teaches about salvation, I'm a Calvinist. I don't read with my hands over my eyes when I see the words "predestined", "elected" and "chosen". I also think it's nonsense to say that God chooses the elect based on their choice of him.

What I find especially abominable are the claims that God gives up on those he has saved and covenanted with. Eternal security is what caused me to leave that fellowship. I was asked to be part of their evangelizing team after being there about 15 years, and I decided I could not do that because I wasn't comfortable with bringing another person into a fellowship where eternal security was not taught. So, I had to ask myself why I was there if I didn't think it was a healthy environment for others.

I suppose, though, I could handle an Arminian church that held to eternal security. Eternal security is where I draw the line.

:)

Eternal life is eternal security because it is based on Cherist and his work.

Calvin is not the only one who teaches this, Arminians will never believe in this. It is against their c ore belief system.
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
689
113
#19
I think a lot of this comes from Pelagian-Finneyists like Jesse Morrell, Kerrigan Skelly, and Moral Government Theology heretics. I don't trust any of those guys.
Maybe rightfully so, but it wouldn't be smart to deny that the pre-Augustine church fathers universally advocated free will, whereas the church after (the former gnostic) Augustine rejected their view and sided with (at least some form of) the gnostic view of total depravity.
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
689
113
#20
He was trained by Moral Government Theology teachers. His view of the atonement is not penal substitutionary atonement. He teaches that Christ died as a moral example, and not a penal substitutionary atonement. He does not believe in imputed righteousness and justification by faith alone. All these things are fundamental to the gospel message.

He quotes from Pelagius and also from Charles Finney, who was in essence a Pelagian.

By the way, I was on a facebook group with Morrell and a bunch of his Pelagian-Finneyist buddies. I was shocked at the nastiness of their behavior, after seeing videos of them preaching to college kids. They are vile and I'm ashamed that college kids see such bad examples of Christianity. But, I guess there are wolves everywhere.
Then he is in grave error. Sounds like a group that I can't remember the name of at the moment.

However, that doesn't diminish the fact that in terms of total depravity vs free will, Calvin is more in line with the gnostics, than the pre-Augustine church fathers. Morrell has documented that very well.