Issues on Arminian/Calvinist Systems

[Spiderman&Co.]

Sorry about that last post, Reader. I screwed up on the html/quotes.

[Spiderman&Co.]

"Dispensationalism" as taught today, teaches that salvation was worked differently for the O.T. saints, than the N.T. saints. Distinctions are made between the O.T. Jews saved, and the N.T. believers redeemed, that is not biblical.
Calvin taught a covenant soteriology that reveals there is one body of believers; an O.T. and N.T. elect who were predestined, called, and justified alike, by the sovereign grace and power of God, through the gift of faith in Jesus Christ.

I am not sure that this is a valid charge. For the life of me, I can't think of a single dispensational scholar today who would deny that O.T. Jews are not saved by grace through faith.

You are right, though, one of the distinctives of dispensational theology is to draw certain distinctions between O.T. Jew and N.T. Believer. Just not so radical as you described above.

In addition, "Dispensationalists" teach salvation comes by the "free" will and choices of men (Arminianism), where Calvin taught salvation only comes by the predetermined choices and grace of God.

I'm not sure how you have come to this conclusion. There are many dispensational theologians who are not Arminian. In fact, I would venture to say most believe in God's predestination and the total depravity of mankind.

Arminian theology is in no way related to dispensationalism.

[scaramouch]

rhutchin: As a matter of logic, we should conclude that all are Totally Depraved and even the least of us is as guilty as the greatest. That is the conclusion that the Scriptures lead us to.

Spiderman&Co.: That's a bit of a missrepresentation...It is more of a system of Biblical interpretation than it is a matter of having a preconceived notion (TULIP). A Calvinist believes that the best way to understand the Bible in regards to salvation is to understand it as teaching TULIP. There is strong Biblical support for TULIP....A Calvinist seeks to "fit together" the Scriptures into a "sound doctrine." I think you said something similar in your post!...How does TULIP not stand up to the Bible????

trueseeker: I am not saying that TULIP doctrines aren't a legitimate interpretation of certain scriptures. The problem I am referring to is as Spidy says, many use TULIP as a system of Biblical interpretation. When this happens, Calvinism becomes a higher authority than the Bible. Verses which refer to people choosing Christ or falling away from the faith for example, have to be explained away as meaning something different than they appear to. Any reader of these scriptures, who doesn't have Calvinist indoctrination, will accept at face value that these scriptures tell us that we can choose or reject Christ, and that we can fall away from the faith. However Calvinists cannot, because such beliefs don't fit into TULIP doctrine and TULIP doctrine is more important to maintain than scriptural implications that TULIP doctrines aren't absolutely correct.

As for Total Depravity, this term does not appear in the Bible. So to say that it is absolutely Biblical, is very deceiving for those who don't know the scriptures very well. You could say 'the fear of God', that 'God wants us to love others', that we are to 'have faith in God' are Biblical teachings, all of these are mentioned dozens of times in the Bible. To say that, 'Total Depravity' is a Biblical teaching when it is mentioned zero times in the Bible, is misleading.

Yes, we are all sinners who fall short of God's righteousness, does that mean that we are all at exactly the same level of sinful state or depravity? I think the scriptures clearly state the opposite, but you can't see it while you have the TULIP filter glasses on when reading the Bible. You have to turn it around and use the Bible to judge the TULIP doctrines. There are different levels of sinners, although John the Baptist and Saul (the apostle Paul) both were sinners and needed Jesus to save them, they were not at the same level of depravity, sin or guilt. John was proclaiming Jesus' coming before he met Jesus, and Saul was killing Jesus' followers before he met Him. Obviously Saul was a greater sinner, and he says that he was a greater sinner than most in the scriptures.

I believe that "Reader" dealt adequately with most of the inaccuracies in these three paragraphs. I would just like to add a couple of notes if I may.


Truthseeker said: "I am not saying that TULIP doctrines aren't a legitimate interpretation of certain scriptures. The problem I am referring to is as Spidy says, many use TULIP as a system of Biblical interpretation. When this happens, Calvinism becomes a higher authority than the Bible."


I would like for Truthseeker to show me where any Calvinistic Theologian uses TULIP as an intrepretive grid. I have never run accross one! Interpretive grids are grammitcal tools, not preconceived notions. If one reads the text using standard rules for grammar and deductive logic then it is easy for Calvinists to deduce from the texts of Scripture that "God is Sovereign in all that He does". I do know that this has be used by many Calvinist's as a "grid" over the last 4 centuries. They do this because we do not possess all the data in every case to make correct deductions from all the propositions found in the text. Every system of interpretation has a 'starting' point that governs which direction they will go when they approach texts that appear to be at odds from their own 'starting' point. TULIP, though, has never been used as a starting point for interpretation.


trueseeker said: "Verses which refer to people choosing Christ or falling away from the faith for example, have to be explained away as meaning something different than they appear to. Any reader of these scriptures, who doesn't have Calvinist indoctrination, will accept at face value that these scriptures tell us that we can choose or reject Christ, and that we can fall away from the faith."


I would like for you to logically demostrate this from the scriptures. As far as I know this is impossible because you are not able to know for certainty the state of mind of any of the indivduals who "believed". As far as I know there are no instances of a person saying, "Gee, I see now that I am a sinner, and I did it all on my own, I know that sin was holding be back, but I have worked past that know, all on my own, and now I choose to accept Christ!" There is not way to state the condition of the mind, hindered or unhindered by sin, in any text of Scripture. We are not privy to that insight. There are on the otherhand verses like Acts 16:14, "...And the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul." This is a clear illustration of God in the process of salvation. We know nothing of Lydia's "heart" condition, other than the verse that says that we are all universally 'dead in our trespasses and sins." This would extend to Lydia as well. Becuase of this God has to open her heart to believe. Lydia did not do it herself. There are other verses that demostrate this same scenario. (Romans 10:17, Matthew 16:13-17)


Truthseeker said: "As for Total Depravity, this term does not appear in the Bible. So to say that it is absolutely Biblical, is very deceiving for those who don't know the scriptures very well. You could say 'the fear of God', that 'God wants us to love others', that we are to 'have faith in God' are Biblical teachings, all of these are mentioned dozens of times in the Bible. To say that, 'Total Depravity' is a Biblical teaching when it is mentioned zero times in the Bible, is misleading."

I am sorry my brother that you do not see the obvious logical error here in your reasoning. "Reader" correctly pointed out that the doctrine of the Trinity is not mentioned but is clearly taught in the Scriptures. If you limit your vocabulary to just those words found in the text then logically you should confine your "Biblical" vocabulary to Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. All translations are interpretations! Therefore to use english to convey Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic words would not be, in your words, "Biblical Teaching". We would have to throw out the Incarnation, Substitutionary Atonement, Inerrancy and a host of others. The history of doctrine may revolve around arguments about the meaning of such words, but the words have never been catagorically dismissed is such a crase way.


Truthseeker said: "Yes, we are all sinners who fall short of God's righteousness, does that mean that we are all at exactly the same level of sinful state or depravity? I think the scriptures clearly state the opposite, but you can't see it while you have the TULIP filter glasses on when reading the Bible. You have to turn it around and use the Bible to judge the TULIP doctrines. There are different levels of sinners, although John the Baptist and Saul (the apostle Paul) both were sinners and needed Jesus to save them, they were not at the same level of depravity, sin or guilt. John was proclaiming Jesus' coming before he met Jesus, and Saul was killing Jesus' followers before he met Him. Obviously Saul was a greater sinner, and he says that he was a greater sinner than most in the scriptures."


Assuming that you are looking with 'unfiltered' eyes when you read the Scriptures, could you please demostrate, using the text, to clearly show that there are 'differing' levels of depravity in the Scriptures? Sin has catagoies, but depravity is pervassive. Total depravity is not 'degrees'. We are not as completely depraved in all our parts as we could be (praise God!), but all are parts (mind and emotions) are depraved. It seems to be your goal to confine things to Biblical catagories. Then please show the differing levels of depravity (sorry...not a Biblical word). I do not believe that it can be done. I am afraid my dear brother that have not accurately portrayed the Calvinistic system of thought or their 'grid' for interpretation of the Biblical text. But instead you have created a logical strawman, and poke fun at him instead. A little reading in the History of Biblical Doctrine, and Systemic Theology could cure this ailment in your thinking. Your heart seems correctly fixed on letting the Scriptures speak for themselves, which is well and good, I wish more people were as concerned for what the text says as you seem to be.

But I blather...

[Kevin Wayne]

I would like for Truthseeker to show me where any Calvinistic Theologian uses TULIP as an intrepretive grid. I have never run accross one! Interpretive grids are grammitcal tools, not preconceived notions. If one reads the text using standard rules for grammar and deductive logic then it is easy for Calvinists to deduce from the texts of Scripture that "God is Sovereign in all that He does". I do know that this has be used by many Calvinist's as a "grid" over the last 4 centuries. They do this because we do not possess all the data in every case to make correct deductions from all the propositions found in the text. Every system of interpretation has a 'starting' point that governs which direction they will go when they approach texts that appear to be at odds from their own 'starting' point. TULIP, though, has never been used as a starting point for interpretation.

Read John Gill's commentaries sometime. His method when dealing with a difficult passage is often to explain it by an understood 5- point system, but not as frequently to explain why we should view the text in that manner.

[Kevin Wayne]

I am sorry my brother that you do not see the obvious logical error here in your reasoning. "Reader" correctly pointed out that the doctrine of the Trinity is not mentioned but is clearly taught in the Scriptures. If you limit your vocabulary to just those words found in the text then logically you should confine your "Biblical" vocabulary to Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. All translations are interpretations! Therefore to use english to convey Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic words would not be, in your words, "Biblical Teaching". We would have to throw out the Incarnation, Substitutionary Atonement, Inerrancy and a host of others. The history of doctrine may revolve around arguments about the meaning of such words, but the words have never been catagorically dismissed is such a crase way.

However, I would support using an extrabiblical vocabulary that is mimimal at best. Make it fit on a restraunt napkin! I suggest redefining our theological terms to fit biblical categories whenever possible, and I think if you are commited to that, you may find it's more possible than you think! ;-)

[rhutchin]

However, I would support using an extrabiblical vocabulary that is mimimal at best. Make it fit on a restraunt napkin! I suggest redefining our theological terms to fit biblical categories whenever possible, and I think if you are commited to that, you may find it's more possible than you think! ;-)

The problem has never been the extrabiblical terms that people use in explaining what the Bible tells us. Terms, like TULIP, and its components, Total Depravity, etc have done much to explain what the Calvinists believe the Bible to say. People may take issue with the meaning that TULIP conveys, but it is understandable and promotes dialog. Nobody contends that the Bible gives no support for TULIP; they contend that TULIP does not account for everything that the Bible says.

Can you give an example of "...redefining our theological terms to fit biblical categories whenever possible..."?

[Kevin Wayne]

Can you give an example of "...redefining our theological terms to fit biblical categories whenever possible..."?

Yes.

Instead of "faith alone", I would say "obedience of faith", "faith hope & love", "faith working itself through love", etc.

[scaramouch]

However, I would support using an extrabiblical vocabulary that is mimimal at best. Make it fit on a restraunt napkin! I suggest redefining our theological terms to fit biblical categories whenever possible, and I think if you are commited to that, you may find it's more possible than you think! ;-)

I am afraid that I am not equal to the task. A quick study of the History of Doctrine will reveal that people have been trying to do this for the last 2000 years. There have been some successes and some horrible blurring of the truth all together. Even translations are a challenge when trying to keep current with changes in slang and general vocabulary.

I find it easier to use words and then give definitions, then to merely throw out words hoping the listener will hear what I am saying and then apply "MY" definitions to my words. After having read through many threads on this site I have seen this happen over and over again. Lot's of heat, but no light whatsoever. Many arguments would stop in their respective tracks if individuals would define their terms. "Chappie" is a good case in point. As much as he demands others to do this he is lothe to do it himself in clear terms. This bogs down many threads as well as good discussion.

[Kevin Wayne]

I am afraid that I am not equal to the task. A quick study of the History of Doctrine will reveal that people have been trying to do this for the last 2000 years. There have been some successes and some horrible blurring of the truth all together. Even translations are a challenge when trying to keep current with changes in slang and general vocabulary.

I believe there are those who are and have been performing this task for ages. The simple & humble often do a much better job of it than we "theological" types. Of course the constructs they come up with are not what you would find acceptable, but then it isn't you they are living to please.

I find it easier to use words and then give definitions, then to merely throw out words hoping the listener will hear what I am saying and then apply "MY" definitions to my words. After having read through many threads on this site I have seen this happen over and over again. Lot's of heat, but no light whatsoever. Many arguments would stop in their respective tracks if individuals would define their terms. "Chappie" is a good case in point. As much as he demands others to do this he is lothe to do it himself in clear terms. This bogs down many threads as well as good discussion.

That's interesting, I've pinned down Chappie on a definiton or two and he's always been pretty forthcoming with me...maybe what you folks in the Reformed tradition need to do is some soul-searching about whether you really are interested in learning from people of other persepctives and traditions, or are you more wanting to overcome their objections and make your convictions thiers? The answer since the Synod of Dordt seems to have been in the negative.

[scaramouch]

That's interesting, I've pinned down Chappie on a definiton or two and he's always been pretty forthcoming with me...maybe what you folks in the Reformed tradition need to do is some soul-searching about whether you really are interested in learning from people of other persepctives and traditions, or are you more wanting to overcome their objections and make your convictions thiers? The answer since the Synod of Dordt seems to have been in the negative.[/QUOTE]

Being from the Reformed camp I too have run into individuals whose main line of reasoning is "we say so..." It sure would be nice to hear a "hey that's a good point, I'll look into that and get back to you!" Or even a little, "Wow, I never thought of that!" Being a Calvinist means being in a whole room full of folks how are generally unyielding. There are a few very warm and gooshy types but not many.

I can say that I have arrived at where I am theologically by 'soul-searching' and listening to what others had to say. It is sometimes gutwrenching to have to reevaluate your theological position, and possibly even change that position in the face of overwhelming evidence. And I will admit that many times it can be frustrating to rehash terms and definitions over and over again just to get to a particular point of debate. It should be easy to exchange ideas, but it rarely is....

[scaramouch]

I believe there are those who are and have been performing this task for ages. The simple & humble often do a much better job of it than we "theological" types. Of course the constructs they come up with are not what you would find acceptable, but then it isn't you they are living to please.






That's interesting, I've pinned down Chappie on a definiton or two and he's always been pretty forthcoming with me...maybe what you folks in the Reformed tradition need to do is some soul-searching about whether you really are interested in learning from people of other persepctives and traditions, or are you more wanting to overcome their objections and make your convictions thiers? The answer since the Synod of Dordt seems to have been in the negative.

I arrived at my theological position after years of 'soul-searching' and listening to what others had to say. If you aren't willing to listen to others then this is the wrong website to be on. As a Calvinist I don't generally like the atittude of most other Calvinists that I run into. They are generally of the "we say so.." variety, but we can't always pick and choose our in-laws.

I am happy to share the heritage of Calvinism, quite a lot of great folks, but I too lament that they don't listen very well to other opposing positions. I have always wanted to be right all the time, but I have found after years of trying...that I don't wear it well.

[Spiderman&Co.]

...As a Calvinist I don't generally like the atittude of most other Calvinists that I run into. They are generally of the "we say so.." variety, but we can't always pick and choose our in-laws.

I am happy to share the heritage of Calvinism, quite a lot of great folks, but I too lament that they don't listen very well to other opposing positions. I have always wanted to be right all the time, but I have found after years of trying...that I don't wear it well.

That's a great post!

But don't be too hard on Calvinists, because many individuals from every theological tradition are guilty of the same errors. This is not a problem in the Calvinist camp alone.

The root of the problem is intellectual arrogance, not a particular theological system.

[trueseeker]

I believe I see the point that you are making. You are saying that if a Calvinistic theological system puts a person in a position where they are ignoring or diminishing the meaning of certain passages of Scripture, then the system has become more important ("a higher authority") than Scripture.

I agree wholeheartedly!! In fact, as one who has interacted in Cavlinistic and Reformed circles, I have certainly seen this occur. But I have seen this occur in other circles as well.

Isn't this a problem that can occur within any theological system? Would this not apply to Arminian theology and Process theology as well?

Why do you single out Calvinism??? That doesn't seem fair!

Spidy,

I don't single out Calvinists, nor do I lump all Calvinists together. Many groups do this, as I stated earleir in this thread. And this thread started from this point which I made in a different thread. After a group determines certain doctrines are concrete, then they try to make everything else in the Bible fit somehow with their set doctrines, often to the point of stating that scripture doesn't mean what it appears to say, because that would contridict a concrete doctrine. For those who are stuck in this circular reasoning, the only way I have found effective to date, is to challenge them to reevaluate these set doctrines, by setting them aside and rereading the NT with a open mind.

While they are still in the mode of filtering what the Bible says through Calvinist doctrines, it doesn't matter if you show them 40 NT verses about falling away. They are just dismissed, because they can't mean what they say. Nor will verses that admonish us to step forward and believe, or accept, or follow, seek, etc. have any meaning to them, because they have determined these things can't be done. In fact the whole NT is telling us to do things, so that we don't fall short of what we should be or do. Yet, personal responsibility can't be accepted, because we don't factor in, everything is predestined. However, those who can set aside their Calvinist doctrines and reread the NT (without commentaries), who are praying and willing to allow the Holy Spirit to show them what the scriptures mean and are willing to accept what they say at face value. Then it is becomes obvious that we have personal responsibility to seek, accept and follow. Work with and allow the Lord to make changes in our lives, and be careful lest we are tempted to fall away. These things are clearly stated, but if you have predetermined that they can't mean what they say before you approach the Bible, you can't see them.

[trueseeker]

Several Calvinists in this thread have challenged me to post scriptures which contradict Calvinists doctrines. This was why I made my point in a different thread and how this thread got started, it won't matter how many verses I post. Calvinists generally (I'm not saying all Calvnists or only Calvinists do this) have predetermined to interpret all scriptures in the light of Calvinist doctrine. Therefore whatever verse I would post, no matter what it said, would be explained away. If I posted a verse where Paul said, 'There will come a man named Calvin, do not believe his systematic theology.' It would be interpreted that Paul was being sarcastic, he really meant you should believe Calvin's theology, or he is obviously referring to a different Calvin. I really don't think it matters how specific the scriptures, I or others can give you which contradict Calvinist doctrine. The only way to view these other scriptures without predjuice and understand what they are saying is to set them aside Calvinist doctrines and view the scriptures with a open mind.

[Spiderman&Co.]

Spidy,

I don't single out Calvinists, nor do I lump all Calvinists together. Many groups do this, as I stated earleir in this thread.

I'm confused!

You start off by saying that ignoring the Scriptures is something that "many groups" do and that you "don't single out Calvinists", but you only criticize the Calvinistic position. Particularly, you often seem to bring it back to the eternal security issue. I haven't heard you state anything against Arminian theology or Open/Process theology....

Personally, I think it is fine if you want to wage a criticism against Calvinism. (Despite being a Calvinist, I believe this choice is yours!) But why not take a poke at Open Theism once in a while????