Why Some Arminians and Calvinists Need to Calm Down

  • 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.

Johann

Active member
Apr 12, 2022
928
212
43
#1
Why Some Arminians and Calvinists Need to Calm Down
Theology
Mar 19
Written By Nate Sala
healthy-dispute-management.jpg
I’ll be honest. Wading into the murky quagmire that is the debate between Arminians and Calvinists is about as exciting to me as getting my wisdom teeth pulled. Oftentimes I find the disagreement to be less than gracious. Other times I find it to be vicious, condescending, and outright silly. Case in point: A recent blog caught my eye that tried to argue against Calvinism because, get this, Calvinists are big, dumb jerks! Just look at that Mark Driscoll guy! So did you catch that line of reasoning? Calvinists are rude therefore Calvinism is false. Well that’s a tasty sandwich topped with ad hominems, isn’t it? Another one argued against Arminianism by describing it as Pelagianism in different clothes (but forgetting to mention that the two are distinctly different). One particular forum even tried to say that Calvinists are secretly Pelagians. What?! Oh, and let’s not forget the old handy dandy “you guys aren’t real Christians” tripe.

Look, I’m not one who thumbs his nose from the sidelines while refusing to get his theological hands dirty. I hold a particular view on this issue (and have no problem sharing it when appropriate). But there is something that I think a lot of us have forgotten. The ongoing saga of Arminianism vs. Calvinism has been around for so long because Scripture appears to support both views. Just talk to a Calvinist or an Arminian. They can probably open their Bible and point you exactly where you need to go. Let’s face it: Arminians are just as confident waving around John 3 as Calvinists are whipping out Ephesians 1. Thing is, no one knows with a 100% certainty whether his view is correct. By the way I say “his” because I hardly see any women blowing a gasket over this issue.

So, fellow brothers in Christ, please help the rest of us, and yourselves, and this centuries-old debate by taking a deep breath and calming down. Since the goal of discussing this issue should be to get someone to consider your viewpoint fairly, then try to remember these simple tips:

#1 Don’t Be Obnoxious

Stop resorting to hyperbolic rhetoric to further your point. I mean it. If you don’t, I’m going to jam a million tooth picks through my earhole and into my brain until the part of me that recognizes hyperbole disappears. By the way, writing hyperbolically is not making an argument. It’s just writing hyperbolically. Perhaps that style of communicating is persuasive to some people but, for those of us who know better, it just looks childish. And the numerous exclamation points after sentences you want to emphasize!!!!!!!!! And the way your finger often slips off the shift key so that your seven exclamation points also now include the number one in the middle (!!!1!!!!) looks really sloppy. Also, incessantly italicizing words or phrases or typing in ALL CAPS TO REALLY EMPHASIZE YOUR POINT is not making an argument either. It just looks like you’re impulsive and probably screaming. In other words, if it takes all of these silly grammatical devices to make your point, then your argument (if it even exists at all) is likely weaker than the plot of Die Hard 5.

#2 Don’t Name-call

Calling your opponent a fake Christian if he disagrees with your viewpoint is never useful. It simply showcases the obvious insecurity in your own argument. That is, your argument should stand or fall on its own merits, not whether you’ve successfully intimidated your opposition through name-calling. Also, someone can just call you a fake Christian right back and now you’re stuck in a statistical dead heat in the first round. At the end of the day Arminians and Calvinists still believe in Jesus and His redemptive work on the cross. So, yes, people can actually disagree with you on this issue and still love the Lord. Trying to take away their salvation unless they think like you is almost as ridiculous as young-earthers suggesting that old-earthers are not real Christians. No, wait. That’s equally as ridiculous.

#3 Don’t Mischaracterize

Stop, stop, stop mischaracterizing your opponent’s point of view. Calvinists, stop telling people that Arminians deny God’s grace. Arminians, stop telling people that Calvinists believe everyone is a robot. I read a pro-Arminian post recently that went something like this: Calvinism is a false gospel that offers no eternal life or salvation by the Holy Spirit. Dear Arminian who decided that was actually worth writing down, perhaps you genuinely misunderstand your opponent’s view (in which case you never should have hit “send” on that post) or you do understand your opponent’s view and are purposely misleading others (in which case you probably shouldn’t own a computer). Brothers, in order to speak on a particular issue, you need to do your homework. And, by “homework,” I don’t mean skimming Wikipedia. Understanding your opponent’s view from his own perspective keeps you from landing a devastating uppercut on a jaw made entirely of straw. Think of it this way: If mischaracterizing opponents is what internet atheists do on Twitter, why would you want to do this to a fellow believer?

#4 Be Honest about Your Shortcomings

It seems to me that people from both camps tend to be, let’s just say, selective in the passages of Scripture that they cite in support of their view. That is, they selectively forget the ones that don’t support their view. Also, for some reason, I keep noticing that the average Arminian is way more interested in his system than citing Scripture while the average Calvinist doesn’t want to do anything but cite Scripture. Maybe that’s not characteristic of these groups. I’m open to that. The point is: In order to formulate a robust view, the Calvinist and the Arminian must deal with the problems their respective systems create. Calvinists, how do you square Luke 7:30 with your view? Arminians, how do you deal with Jesus’ own words in John 6:65? And, most importantly, are your answers sufficient to the challenge or are they just exercises in swatting them away?

In Conclusion

Here’s the point, gentlemen: Whether Arminian or Calvinist, neither of you is at 100% certainty in your respective views. I don’t need to meet any of you to know that you’re not. No one is. We are all somewhere between 51% and 100% certainty. But all of these issues I’ve raised so far seem to stem from those acting as if they’re 100% certain. So why don’t we all calm down, try to reconcile all of Scripture to our particular viewpoints (because maybe you have a good argument to share that we haven’t heard yet), and exhibit a heck of a lot more humility and less ostentation. I mean, isn’t the real purpose of these kinds of discussions to be winsome not gruesome?

Why Some Arminians and Calvinists Need to Calm Down
 

notmyown

Senior Member
May 26, 2016
4,701
1,130
113
#2
have you been to batting practice? because you're hitting it out of the park. :)

this is very helpful, too. i'm grateful you posted it.
 

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
30,196
6,539
113
#4
In Conclusion

Here’s the point, gentlemen: Whether Arminian or Calvinist, neither of you is at 100% certainty in your respective views. I don’t need to meet any of you to know that you’re not. No one is. We are all somewhere between 51% and 100% certainty. But all of these issues I’ve raised so far seem to stem from those acting as if they’re 100% certain. So why don’t we all calm down, try to reconcile all of Scripture to our particular viewpoints (because maybe you have a good argument to share that we haven’t heard yet), and exhibit a heck of a lot more humility and less ostentation. I mean, isn’t the real purpose of these kinds of discussions to be winsome not gruesome?
Not for nothing, but this person has never met me! Being convinced in our belief of Scripture, and standing firm on that belief, and not exhibiting "ostentation." For those not familiar with "ostentation," the definition is:

pretentious and vulgar display, especially of wealth and luxury, intended to impress or attract notice:

The idea that someone would consider a person to fit this definition because they have the courage of their convictions is rather, well..........rather.......

Correcting flawed/false teachings should be the desire of all Sanctified believers!

I chose to not sit around the campfire singing "why can't we all just get along," Jesus did not, nor did the Apostles, I look to Scripture (how Jesus and the Apostles acted) for my inspiration. (just saying)
 

Johann

Active member
Apr 12, 2022
928
212
43
#5
Not for nothing, but this person has never met me! Being convinced in our belief of Scripture, and standing firm on that belief, and not exhibiting "ostentation." For those not familiar with "ostentation," the definition is:

pretentious and vulgar display, especially of wealth and luxury, intended to impress or attract notice:

The idea that someone would consider a person to fit this definition because they have the courage of their convictions is rather, well..........rather.......

Correcting flawed/false teachings should be the desire of all Sanctified believers!

I chose to not sit around the campfire singing "why can't we all just get along," Jesus did not, nor did the Apostles, I look to Scripture (how Jesus and the Apostles acted) for my inspiration. (just saying)
No problemos-you go right ahead.
J.
 

SomeDisciple

Well-known member
Jul 4, 2021
1,831
819
113
#6
With respect to my belief that Calvinism is wrong... I am 100% certain of that one. Calvinist fatalistic interpretations are a crude bastardization of the scriptures that are worthy of their rejection. There is no such thing as "scriptures that support their view".

I think most Christians see that Calvinism makes gross mischaracteriztions about God and the Word that are so severe that Calvinism is considered a "different gospel" preached by a "different Jesus" and those who remain in it are worshipping a different God. It's an entirely different religion- a deterministic, philosophy with theism attached to it.
 

Johann

Active member
Apr 12, 2022
928
212
43
#7
With respect to my belief that Calvinism is wrong... I am 100% certain of that one. Calvinist fatalistic interpretations are a crude bastardization of the scriptures that are worthy of their rejection. There is no such thing as "scriptures that support their view".

I think most Christians see that Calvinism makes gross mischaracteriztions about God and the Word that are so severe that Calvinism is considered a "different gospel" preached by a "different Jesus" and those who remain in it are worshipping a different God. It's an entirely different religion- a deterministic, philosophy with theism attached to it.
Well-I lean more to the Reformed worldview-so count me in as one of those "bastardizing the scriptures and worthy of rejection"
J.
 

PaulThomson

Well-known member
Oct 29, 2023
1,737
232
63
#9
I keep noticing that the average Arminian is way more interested in his system than citing Scripture while the average Calvinist doesn’t want to do anything but cite Scripture.
I see both Calvinists and Arminians, in general, as way more interested in promoting their systems and merely citing verses and parts of verses that they think fit their systems than in understanding what those scriptures are actually saying.

Very few will parse a verse to determine the limits to what it is actually affirming. Rather, when a calvinist or arminian proof-text is put under the microscope, rather than being willing to uncover the facts and go wherever the facts may lead, many simply flood the discussion with a host of other verses they think also fit their system. It is very hard to focus most Christians on a passage of verses long enough to honestly evaluate the limits of what that passage itself is saying. And even harder to get them to admit that those limits disqualify their proof text as proof for their system.
 

PaulThomson

Well-known member
Oct 29, 2023
1,737
232
63
#10
Not for nothing, but this person has never met me! Being convinced in our belief of Scripture, and standing firm on that belief, and not exhibiting "ostentation." For those not familiar with "ostentation," the definition is:

pretentious and vulgar display, especially of wealth and luxury, intended to impress or attract notice:
Like, using magnified bold font is 'not exhibiting "ostentation" '?
 

PaulThomson

Well-known member
Oct 29, 2023
1,737
232
63
#11
With respect to my belief that Calvinism is wrong... I am 100% certain of that one. Calvinist fatalistic interpretations are a crude bastardization of the scriptures that are worthy of their rejection. There is no such thing as "scriptures that support their view".

I think most Christians see that Calvinism makes gross mischaracterizations about God and the Word .
But Calvinists believe in the distinctives of Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints.

None of these terms are found anywhere in scripture. The only time limited is used is when the Israelites are criticised that "they limited the Holy One of Israel" Ps 78:41. That's ironic. Atonement is used only once in the KJV New Testament Rom. 5:11. Not at all in other versions of the New Testament. Total depravity is not there. Unconditional is not there. Irresistible not their. "Who can resist His will?" is a question posed to Paul by a determinist, to whom Paul responds "Not at all . Who are you to contradict God?" God makes it very plain that people do resist His will. Paul had just cited Pharaoh as an example.

Why build a "Christian" theological system on terms the Bible itself doesn't give any priority to?
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,471
12,942
113
#12
The ongoing saga of Arminianism vs. Calvinism has been around for so long because Scripture appears to support both views.
(1) Scripture does not support TULIP even slightly. (2) Not all Christians can be placed in either camp. (3) There is a third alternative which is to stick with Gospel truth, and ignore all the conflict between Calvinism and Arminianism. So what is Gospel truth fully supported buy Scripture?

1. Christ died for the sins of the whole world.
2. God desires the salvation of all mankind.
3. God offers salvation to all freely and eternal life is a gift of God.
4. So if God were to gift saving faith to anyone, He would give it to all mankind.
5. But only those who obey the Gospel are saved.
6. Obedience to the Gospel means repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
7. Those who are saved by grace are eternally secure.
 

selahsays

Well-known member
May 31, 2023
2,347
1,335
113
#13
Am I the only one here who believes that both Election and Free Will Christians exist?
 

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
30,196
6,539
113
#14
Like, using magnified bold font is 'not exhibiting "ostentation" '?
Or. because one is old, and their eyesight is weak, and the bold type allows them to easily read and edit what they post....... kinda quick to judge there are ya?
 

Johann

Active member
Apr 12, 2022
928
212
43
#15
Not for nothing, but this person has never met me! Being convinced in our belief of Scripture, and standing firm on that belief, and not exhibiting "ostentation." For those not familiar with "ostentation," the definition is:

pretentious and vulgar display, especially of wealth and luxury, intended to impress or attract notice:

The idea that someone would consider a person to fit this definition because they have the courage of their convictions is rather, well..........rather.......

Correcting flawed/false teachings should be the desire of all Sanctified believers!

I chose to not sit around the campfire singing "why can't we all just get along," Jesus did not, nor did the Apostles, I look to Scripture (how Jesus and the Apostles acted) for my inspiration. (just saying)
Yup-the gospel of Jesus is meant to be offensive and not "tickle ears"-correct you are @p_rehbein .
Johann.
 

Johann

Active member
Apr 12, 2022
928
212
43
#16
(1) Scripture does not support TULIP even slightly. (2) Not all Christians can be placed in either camp. (3) There is a third alternative which is to stick with Gospel truth, and ignore all the conflict between Calvinism and Arminianism. So what is Gospel truth fully supported buy Scripture?

1. Christ died for the sins of the whole world.
2. God desires the salvation of all mankind.
3. God offers salvation to all freely and eternal life is a gift of God.
4. So if God were to gift saving faith to anyone, He would give it to all mankind.
5. But only those who obey the Gospel are saved.
6. Obedience to the Gospel means repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
7. Those who are saved by grace are eternally secure.
Well done-now give supportive Scripture references to each point brother-
Johann.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,471
12,942
113
#18
Well done-now give supportive Scripture references to each point brother-Johann.
Will that help you to abandon Reformed Theology? Plenty of Scriptures have already been posted to support all those Gospel truths. So now you tell us -- did Christ die for the sins of the whole world, and did He say that He came so that the world might be saved?
 

Johann

Active member
Apr 12, 2022
928
212
43
#19
Will that help you to abandon Reformed Theology? Plenty of Scriptures have already been posted to support all those Gospel truths. So now you tell us -- did Christ die for the sins of the whole world, and did He say that He came so that the world might be saved?
I am open for correction-are you?-yes, Christ did die for the sins of the whole world and not for a select few-I am familiar with the Subjunctive Clauses and can you say you are 100% in the exegesis of Scriptures?



The death and resurrection of Messiah-shedding His blood-was efficacious for PANTAS-ALL-but we know that not pantas WILL come to Christ.


all men. or, all conceivable men. **FS171B, +Gen_24:10, All conceivable translates the force of panta without the article [see Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar, § 1174 c].

This passage makes it abundantly clear that God wills the salvation of every person. The term thelō is used, showing the emotional nature of God’s desire or will to save, even unto the giving of His Son (Joh_3:16; Joh_12:32, 2Co_5:14, Eph_2:14, 1Jn_2:2); so not a mere desire.

Further, Tit_3:4 declares God is a lover of mankind; again showing an emotional aspect of God’s nature toward mankind. God, as to His very nature, loves mankind as a whole. Thus the whole cannot be divided into elect and unelect, saved and damned (LNT, note b). 1Ti_2:1; 1Ti_2:6, **1Ti_4:10, Pro_8:4, Eze_18:23; Eze_18:32, Mat_26:28 note. Joh_1:7; +Joh_3:17; +Joh_4:42, +*Rom_5:18; Rom_11:32, **2Co_5:14, *Tit_2:11, +Heb_2:9, **2Pe_3:9.
to be saved. 1Ti_1:15, Zec_10:8, *Joh_3:17; Joh_5:34.
and to come. +*Mat_28:19, *Mar_16:15, *Luk_24:47, **Rom_10:12-15, 2Th_2:10, 2Ti_3:7, *Rev_14:6.

Who - seeing He is willing that all should be saved (1Ti_2:4; Rom_5:18): we should meet the will of God in behalf of others, by praying for the salvation of all. More would be converted if we prayed more. Our Saviour actually saved us who believe. 'He is willing that all should be saved by believing, even those who do not yet believe (cf. 1Ti_4:10; Tit_2:11). Why multitudes are lost is, they will not come to Him for life (Joh_5:40) [ ou (G3756) thelete (G2309) elthein (G2064), 'ye are not willing to come']. Paul does not say, 'He wishes to save all,' for then He would have saved all in fact; but "will have all men to saved" implies the possibility of man's accepting (through God's prevenient grace) or rejecting it (through man's own perversity). Our prayers ought to include all, as God's grace included all.

See how JFB subtly change what 1 Tim is saying?

1) "Who will have all men to be saved" (hos pantas anthropous thelei sothenai) "Who has an high holy will that all men be saved." If our Lord willed all men to be saved, should not His children will the same? And if so, pray for it? Luk_10:2; Joh_4:35; Rom_9:1-3; Rom_10:1-4; Eze_33:11; Luk_3:34; 2Ti_1:9.

1Ti_2:4

who desires all people -- God's will that we pray for all men, for God desires all people to be saved. cf. 2Pe_3:9.

Key of verse = all men, cf. vs 1, not for just an "elect" nation of Israel.

come knowledge of the truth -- Refers to hearing, understanding, believing, and committing one's self to following (obeying) the gospel message. It covers all aspects of conversion Rom_10:17; Heb_11:6; Luk_24:47; Heb_5:9;

Four arguments for universal prayer to the One True God -- 1Ti_2:5-6
1) One God for all men
2) One mediator for all
3) Availability of ransom for all
4) Paul's commission to the Gentiles - cf 1Ti_2:7


THE SYNONYMOUS WORDS
FOR
"WILL" AND "WISH".



The difference between these two words is important; and, in the occurrences of each, this Appendix is referred to.
1. thelo means to wish or desire , and is the emotional element which leads to the consequent action. It is therefore stronger than boulomai , because the natural impulse is stronger than the reasoned resolve.
2. The Noun thelema must also be noted, with the same distinction from boulema , as denoting the desire rather than the resolve.
3. boulomai , though it sometimes means more, yet has reference to the result of thelo ; viz. the deliberate determination, whether in accordance with, or contrary to, the original wish or impulse.
4. In like manner the Noun boulema is to be distinguished from thelema (No. 2) as denoting resolve, counsel, or determination, rather than the wish or desire. Boulema occurs only twice, Act_27:43. Rom_9:19. The Noun, boule with a similar meaning, occurs twelve times.
For illustrations of the differences see Mat_1:19. Mar_15:9; Mar_15:12; Mar_15:15. Rom_7:15, &c.


1Ti 2:4 ὃς hos|G3739|RelPro-NMS|who πάντας pantas|G3956|Adj-AMP|all ἀνθρώπους anthrōpous|G444|N-AMP|men θέλει thelei|G2309|V-PIA-3S|desires σωθῆναι sōthēnai|G4982|V-ANP|to be saved, καὶ kai|G2532|Conj|and εἰς eis|G1519|Prep|to ἐπίγνωσιν epignōsin|G1922|N-AFS|[the] knowledge ἀληθείας alētheias|G225|N-GFS|of [the] truth ἐλθεῖν. elthein|G2064|V-ANA|to come.

So-let's sum it up-

Eze 18:23 Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?

Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live.”




[87] Mosheim (Instit. Hist. Eccles. maj. I. 36): Id sanctus homo tradit: nisi pax in orbe terrarum vigeat, fieri nullo modo posse, ut voluntati divinae, quae omnium hominum salutem cupit, satisfiat; bellis nimirum flagrantibus haud licuisset legatis Jesu Christi, secure ad omnes populos proficisei.

[88] In this verse the idea of the universality of God’s purpose of salvation is clearly and distinctly expressed.

Calvin, in order to save his theory of predestination, has to take refuge in an exposition more than ingenious: de hominum generibus, non singulis personis, sermo est; nihil enim aliud intendit, quam principes et extraneos, populos in hoc numero includere.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,471
12,942
113
#20
yes, Christ did die for the sins of the whole world and not for a select few-
So you have already rejected a key component of TULIP. Yet you say you prefer Reformed Theology over Gospel truth.