You Must Be a Calvinist or an Arminian!
- 5 views
See the sermon link for my notes. Don’t want to get into the weeds on that here. The question I asked the congregation was this:
- Does God deliberately harden hearts and blind eyes so people will not believe, or does He allow unbelievers to do that to themselves?
I answered:
- God doesn’t directly step in to harden anybody’s heart or blind anybody’s eyes. Unbelievers do that to themselves, and He lets them do it (i.e. He withholds His grace in effectual calling and gives them the desire of their hearts).
The basic point is that, no matter what shade of monergism you want to come down on, passages like this make it very difficult to opt for synergism in general.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Sadly the DBTS profs had to continue to frame this as either or. Since they are calvinists (little c), they have to present it as the best of only two options. The alternative has to be something that would rob God of glory. In fact, Arminians might even, gulp, share God’s glory.
This is sad because even a freshman Bible student should be able to see through this rhetoric presented by 2 guys with doctorates (for what that is worth).
Quick question: Did Arminius teach that a person can be saved apart from the Spirit first working in his heart?
Quick question: Do Calvinists believe that a person can be saved apart from faith?
Quick question: Can you define monergism?
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
James,
No, “divine grace” was required for salvation.
Here is one statement on Free will…
“The Free Will of Man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except as excited by Divine grace.”
Works of Arminius, Volume 2 p192
KML
Still not interacting with the proposition presented by Combs:
In Calvinism faith is the result of election; in Arminianism election is the result of faith.
If you believe this is a false proposition, demonstrate how it is false.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Chip Van Emmerik]Ken,
As you read through the example that follows, Combs illustrates the absolute binary nature of the issue - it’s either one or the other.
One answer is that God chose Joe (unconditional election) and gave him grace (efficacious) that caused him to believe. He owes his salvation completely to God (monergism). Joe cannot boast in his salvation (1 Cor 1:28–29; Eph 2:8–9). This is Calvinism.
The other, and only other[2] possible, answer is that God chose Joe because Joe chose God (conditional election). God looked down the corridors of time and saw that Joe would one day believe the gospel, so he elected Joe. But actually God did not make any independent choice. If Joe chooses God, God must choose Joe, but if Joe rejects God, God cannot choose Joe. God simply ratifies whatever choice Joe makes.
Chip,
The problem with their “other, and only other [2] possible solution”, is that this is the Calvinist explanation of Arminianism. Arminians believe that by God’s divine grace thru Christ via the Holy Spirit, man’s will was freed to believe on Christ. It was a joint effort, not just Joe choosing God alone. Calvinists must believe that God regenerated a person, then they had faith to believe. Arminians believe God via the Spirit freed man’s will to make a choice unto salvation, not election. Election and salvation are not one in the same. Calvinists constantly use this false argument to defend their position, but it is not the position of Arminians.
Ken
[KLengel]So Ken, Dr. Combs was accurate when he said this to support the aforementioned proposition,Chip Van Emmerik wrote:
Ken,
As you read through the example that follows, Combs illustrates the absolute binary nature of the issue - it’s either one or the other.
One answer is that God chose Joe (unconditional election) and gave him grace (efficacious) that caused him to believe. He owes his salvation completely to God (monergism). Joe cannot boast in his salvation (1 Cor 1:28–29; Eph 2:8–9). This is Calvinism.
The other, and only other[2] possible, answer is that God chose Joe because Joe chose God (conditional election). God looked down the corridors of time and saw that Joe would one day believe the gospel, so he elected Joe. But actually God did not make any independent choice. If Joe chooses God, God must choose Joe, but if Joe rejects God, God cannot choose Joe. God simply ratifies whatever choice Joe makes.
Chip,
The problem with their “other, and only other [2] possible solution”, is that this is the Calvinist explanation of Arminianism. Arminians believe that by God’s divine grace thru Christ via the Holy Spirit, man’s will was freed to believe on Christ. It was a joint effort, not just Joe choosing God alone. Calvinists must believe that God regenerated a person, then they had faith to believe. Arminians believe God via the Spirit freed man’s will to make a choice unto salvation, not election. Election and salvation are not one in the same. Calvinists constantly use this false argument to defend their position, but it is not the position of Arminians.
Ken
In Arminianism, prevenient grace is given to all people, or at least to all who hear the gospel, and enables them to be saved by cooperating with God’s grace (synergism), but this prevenient grace may be rejected. Again, there are only two choices. Either God’s grace is efficacious and ultimately overcomes the individual’s depravity and brings him to faith in Christ (Calvinism), or God’s grace is just prevenient, that is, it is sufficient to overcome depravity, but the individual may reject this grace (Arminianism).
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Chip,
My point was two fold. One, Calvinists tend to argue a binary option between Calvinism vs Arminian, synergism vs monergism. They do that to show their viewpoint alone is better than the other. (ignore, deny other options as valid) Second, they normally do so, by misrepresenting the single (in their mind) opposing argument. Calvinists have done this for quite some time.
As James K stated, this was a feeble attempt to defend their viewpoint in a binary approach to election.
Thanks,
Ken
But, Ken, you don’t believe any viewpoint is better than yours do you? How many valid approaches to election are there. Is yours the only possibly correct view?
[DavidO]But, Ken, you don’t believe any viewpoint is better than yours do you? How many valid approaches to election are there. Is yours the only possibly correct view?
David,
You are out of line.
I never mentioned my views.
There is only one right view on anything.
Most anyone I know believes their view is right. We all choose a view. We all believe it.
Even Dr. Combs believes his view of only two options is right. Does that make him not worthy to listen to?
Have a great day!
Ken
[KLengel]Claiming a statement is wrong is not the same as showing where it is wrong. The quote I provided earlier and resubmit below seems to agree with what you have said, making it an accurate representation of at least one point of Arminianism. Here again is what Dr. Combs said,Chip,
My point was two fold. One, Calvinists tend to argue a binary option between Calvinism vs Arminian, synergism vs monergism. They do that to show their viewpoint alone is better than the other. (ignore, deny other options as valid) Second, they normally do so, by misrepresenting the single (in their mind) opposing argument. Calvinists have done this for quite some time.
As James K stated, this was a feeble attempt to defend their viewpoint in a binary approach to election.
Thanks,
Ken
In Arminianism, prevenient grace is given to all people, or at least to all who hear the gospel, and enables them to be saved by cooperating with God’s grace (synergism), but this prevenient grace may be rejected. Again, there are only two choices. Either God’s grace is efficacious and ultimately overcomes the individual’s depravity and brings him to faith in Christ (Calvinism), or God’s grace is just prevenient, that is, it is sufficient to overcome depravity, but the individual may reject this grace (Arminianism).
If this is false, please demonstrate where you believe the error lies instead of just declaring it false from your point of view.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Chip,
I never said that statement was false. Did you read my original post?
“Don’t you think Combs’ point is a misrepresentation of Arminians? I do not believe Arminians believe the sinner is the “ultimate decider” or that “he deserves to share in that glory”. That appears to be an extrapolation of Combs logic, not the opinion of Arminians. (For the record, I am neither) In fact, I think the whole Calvinism vs. Arminianism is a false dilemma in itself. It’s why no one ever comes to the actual truth on the matter.”
Arminians don’t believe what Combs suggested. Read Olson’s book on Arminian Theology, Myth 6. He clearly outlines what Arminius and his followers believed.
Read Arminius’ work. As James K stated, any first year Bible Student would know this was a misrepresentation of Arminian Theology.
I said it was a misrepresentation of Arminian Theology and it is. It’s the way calvinists argue.
Ken
KLengel,
I posed two earlier questions to you that you will hopefully get to answer soon.
In the meantime, you claim that Dr. Combs misrepresents what Arminians believe.
You say: Arminians believe that by God’s divine grace thru Christ via the Holy Spirit, man’s will was freed to believe on Christ.
Dr. Combs says: In Arminianism, prevenient grace is given to all people, or at least to all who hear the gospel, and enables them to be saved by cooperating with God’s grace (synergism), but this prevenient grace may be rejected.
Isn’t this the same thing? In other words, you seem to agree with Dr. Combs about what Arminians believe (although he used their word, “prevenient,” where you did not). How is he misrepresenting them? Can you clarify for us?
“It was a joint effort, not just Joe choosing God alone. Calvinists must believe that God regenerated a person, then they had faith to believe. Arminians believe God via the Spirit freed man’s will to make a choice unto salvation, not election. Election and salvation are not one in the same. Calvinists constantly use this false argument to defend their position, but it is not the position of Arminians.”
KML
Ken,
You keep dancing around the heart of the issue. Combs agrees that it is a joint effort.
Both Calvinists and Arminians agree that the sinner chooses Christ. The sinner is not coerced into a decision for Christ. The major difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is what ultimately and finally causes a depraved sinner to choose Christ.
The question you refuse to answer or acknowledge is the cause. Something has to begin the process. This is the binary issue you are avoiding. You write, “Arminians believe God via the Spirit freed man’s will to make a choice unto salvation, not election.” You have agreed with Combs (and the other Calvinists you attack) that God’s action hinges on man’s decision. God made it available, but man decided the issue for himself. Arminians teach that man chooses or rejects God, and that God identifies the elect on the basis of their choice in salvation. This is exactly what Combs started with.
In Calvinism faith is the result of election; in Arminianism election is the result of faith.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Out of line? How? Of course Calvinists makes the arguments he makes to “show their viewpoint alone is better than the others”. That’s what everyone who makes an argument does. Including you (which is why I brought your view of your own view into the discussion). So the reason the Calvinists make it a binary choice is moot. The question is, is it really a binary choice?
Hence Larry’s attempts to find some differentiation between what you say [Arminians] affirm and what Combs says [Arminians] affirm. And I must say I don’t see any difference either. So what’s your objection exactly?
(EDITED for accuracy in attribution of views)
Discussion