You Must Be a Calvinist or an Arminian!

I am personally not convinced that if you believe that God is the “ultimate decider” in salvation then you are a Calvinist. There is a lot more to Calvinism than whether God is the “ultimate decider”. These categories are just too contrived for me. Mark Snoeberger, in a parallel article here, says you are Calvinist if you believe man has no independent role in salvation. “Independent role”? I don’t independently breathe! God made the air!

Tyler,

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.

Ken

Ken,

Did you read the article? As combs explains,

In Calvinism faith is the result of election; in Arminianism election is the result of faith.

This is the crux of the issue. The argument flows from there. Later, you get to the conclusion,

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.

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.

In the end, either God is in control or man is in control, but only one is dictating (read deciding) the outcome of the situation. The Arminian position leaves man as the ultimate decider with a right to share in the glory of his salvation (because he made a better choice than those who rejected salvation). There is no way to hold the Arminian position without this baggage.

“The Arminian position leaves man as the ultimate decider with a right to share in the glory of his salvation (because he made a better choice than those who rejected salvation). There is no way to hold the Arminian position without this baggage.”

That’s somewhat of a straw argument. How many people do you actually know who believes man has to make the choice to believe or not believe the gospel or accept or reject God’s gift of eternal life, that glories in their decision. I know many Christians who believe man has to make the choice and they glorify God because of His grace and mercy. I’ve never heard of a Christian trying to share in the glory of God’s salvation.

I don’t know if this will open a can of worms but Calvinists often claim that salvation is wholly from God (monergism) because we would boast if we had a synergistic role. Well, if I believe God picked me (ie loved me) and didn’t pick you (ie didn’t love you as much), doesn’t that introduce some form of boasting and honor that I feel over someone else. After all, God cared enough about me to die for me…but you…not so much.

I realize that these questions have been asked for a long time, I just agree with Ken and don’t think Calvinism or Arminianism captures the whole picture.

Why do people too often default to an either/or kind of discussion? Why can’t it be both/and?

While I’m not a scholar in the finer points of this topic, seems to me the Bible teaches both positions.

I agree with Klengel’s comment about Calvinism v Arminianism being a false dilemma.

Disappointed that DBTS had two profs fumble near their own endzone.

I’m disappointed that Tyler’s disappointed that James is disa… oh nevermind. :D

More to the point perhaps: What often gets lost in the rounds on any controversial topic is the difference between an owned belief and one that is a necessary inference. Here’s what I mean:

• Bob: I am from the state directly east of Minnesota and north of Illinois.
• Bill: Oh, you’re a Wisconsinite
• Bob: No, I’m not any kind of “ite.” I didn’t say that.

In this little exchange, Bob has a point: he didn’t say he was a “Wisconsonite.” He didn’t even say he was from Wisconsin. He doesn’t “own” the idea that he is a Wisconsonite. But he did affirm a couple of facts that force that conclusion.

So, Comb’s analysis is that, at bottom, there is no escaping the question, Who is the ultimate decider? And there are propositions that force the conclusion that ultimately, it’s man. To that point, I can’t argue with him. I’m not sure it’s really fair to Arminius to call the “ultimately man” view Arminianism, but what we call it is not really what matters most.

What matters most is how we answer that inescapable question… and what assertions we make that must lead to one answer or the other.

[Craig]

“The Arminian position leaves man as the ultimate decider with a right to share in the glory of his salvation (because he made a better choice than those who rejected salvation). There is no way to hold the Arminian position without this baggage.”

That’s somewhat of a straw argument. How many people do you actually know who believes man has to make the choice to believe or not believe the gospel or accept or reject God’s gift of eternal life, that glories in their decision. I know many Christians who believe man has to make the choice and they glorify God because of His grace and mercy. I’ve never heard of a Christian trying to share in the glory of God’s salvation.

Where would you find fault with the proposition presented by Dr. Combs?

“In Calvinism faith is the result of election; in Arminianism election is the result of faith.”

“In Calvinism faith is the result of election…”

Not in some forms of preparationism it isn’t (necessarily). Nor is it in the related doctrine of temporary faith taught by Calvin.

“in Arminianism election is the result of faith.”

But not faith exercised independently of the Holy Spirit

I understand Dr Combs (and Roger Olson) when they make it either/or, but the subtleties of the question, especially when one introduces e.g. K. Keathley’s arguments in Salvation & Sovereignty seem to demand a via media.

Seriously, when you have to start defining the other position (Calinism v Arminianism) - and won’t accept what others say they believe - then it indicates you are looking for a fight rather than understanding.

I do not believe Arminians believe the sinner is the “ultimate decider”

Who does an Arminian believe is the ultimate decider?

It’s why no one ever comes to the actual truth on the matter.

How do you know no one ever comes to the truth on the matter?

seem to demand a via media

What is a third way between unconditional election and conditional election?