DOCSLIB.ORG

Theology 1.11

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Theology 1.11 Calvinism and Arminianism 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. The Calvinists didn’t come up with five points to start with. The Calvinists wrote their vision of what salvation looks like and how it happens under God’s sovereignty. When the Arminians read it, they said, “These are five places we don’t agree.” That is where we got these five points. 1. Depravity • Calvinism’s doctrine of total depravity states that every aspect of humanity is corrupted by sin; therefore, human beings are so depraved and rebellious that they are unable to trust God and come to Him on their own accord without God’s special work of grace to change their hearts. • Arminians say, with regard to depravity, that people are depraved and corrupt, but they are able to provide the decisive impulse to trust God with the general divine assistance that God gives to everybody. Although some refer to this as “partial depravity”, 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). 2. Election • Calvinism includes the belief that election is unconditional. It says that we are chosen. God chooses unconditionally whom he will mercifully bring to faith and whom he will justly leave in their rebellion. • Arminianism believes in conditional election which 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. 3. Atonement • Calvinism sees the atonement as limited, while Arminianism sees it as unlimited. Limited atonement is the belief that Jesus only died for the elect. Calvinism and Arminianism • Arminianism sees it as unlimited. Unlimited atonement is the belief that Jesus died for all, but that His death is not effectual until a person receives Him by faith. 4. Grace • Calvinism includes the belief that God’s grace is irresistible. Irresistible grace argues that when God calls a person to salvation, that person will inevitably come to salvation. • Arminianism says that an individual can resist the grace of God. Resistible grace states that God calls all to salvation, but that many people resist and reject this call. 5. Perseverance • Calvinists say God works infallibly to preserve us in faith. Perseverance of the saints refers to the concept that a person who is elected by God (who are truly born again) will persevere in faith and will not permanently deny Christ or turn away from Him. • Arminians say God works to preserve his people, but he does not always prevent some who were born again from falling away to destruction. Examples of passages are interpreted differently by Calvinists and Arminians: John 6:37 "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away." • Calvinists argue that this passages teaches irresistible grace. The individual cannot refuse God's choice, therefore all those given to Christ will respond. • Arminians reply that "those given to me" in 37 are the same as those who "believe in him" in vs. 40. In other words, when God foresees that some will believe, he gives them to Christ. See that in vs. 45, those who "have heard and learned from the father" are the ones who "come to me.” John 6:44,65 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day." • The Calvinist holds that these passages teach total depravity, unconditional election, and also imply limited atonement and double predestination. This is because: "No one can come to me unless . " because they are totally depraved "it has been granted him from the Father" or "the Father draws him" meaning unconditional election. Unconditional in this case, because the cause is the father, not the individual. Calvinism and Arminianism Limited atonement and double predestination are usually inferred from the face that it is impossible to come to him without election. Therefore, those whom the Father has not drawn are naturally destined for judgement, and are therefore those for whom Christ did not die. • The Arminian agrees that these passages teach total depravity. However, they argue that the father draws all men to Christ (Jn. 12:32; 16:8). They further hold that to assign the cause exclusively to the Father ignores vss. 29; 35; 40; and 47. To attribute the cause exclusively to the Father regardless of the response of the person, flies in the face of the stated will of the Father in vs. 40 that "Everyone who beholds the Son and believes in him" be saved. Finally, with regard to limited atonement and double predestination, these positions depend on the earlier conclusion (unconditional election), and therefore beg the question. John 15:16 "You did not choose Me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain..." • Some Calvinists (and Augustine) have argued that this a proof text for unconditional election, emphasizing the irrelevance of human choice. • Arminians point out that the statement is made to the disciples with reference to their apostleship, not to their salvation. This interpretation accords well with the next phrase "that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should remain." See also Jn. 6:70 referring to the same choice. Judas was chosen but not saved. Acts 13:48 "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." • The Calvinists argue that this verse teaches unconditional election, because it would have been easy to say "as many as believed were appointed eternal life" but the reverse is stated. • The Arminians point out that the participle translated "were appointed to" (tetagmenoi) is in the middle-passive voice. This means that the same form is used in Greek to designate both the middle voice and the passive voice. The NASB has translated it in the passive voice. However, if it is translated in the middle voice, the passage would read ". .as many as set themselves to eternal life believed" (cf I Cor. 16:15 where the same participle is translated in the middle voice). Romans 9:16,22,23 • The Calvinist position is that Romans 9 teaches unconditional election and double predestination. This is because: Vs. 16 "it [God's choice] does not depend on the man who wills" Vs. 18 refers to double predestination. Calvinism and Arminianism Vs. 22, 23 refer to "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" and "vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory." The election involved is not a national election, because vs. 24 states that the vessels of mercy are "us, whom He called not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles,"" (i.e. believing Christians). • Arminians argue that the first part of Romans 9 deals with God's choice of nations and their roles in his plans. Vs. 1-5 make clear that the context is that of national choice. This is confirmed in verses 6,7 because all Israelites were not saved and all Ishmaelites were not damned. Also, in vs. 13 Malachi 3:2 is cited to demonstrate that God had favored the nation of Israel over the nation of Edom. Vs. 16 refers to God's choice of how to lead the nation of Israel through the wilderness, which was independent of Moses's opinion. Personal salvation is not in view in the original passage (Ex. 33:19). Vs. 18 is in the context of vs. 16 see above, and vs. 17 which refers to God's temporal destruction of the Egyptians when they wanted to destroy Israel. The verse teaches therefore, that God caused his choice of Israel to stand regardless of Moses' attempts to help or Pharoah's attempts to hinder. Neither Moses' nor Pharoah's personal salvation was in view in these passages. Vs. 22,23 refers to nations which have either glorious or a judgmental role in history. God allows evil nations to exist, and often uses them to bless the chosen nation, Israel. Today, believers are able to participate in the covenant blessings of Israel, because they have been "grafted in to the rich root" of God's purpose in history. Another explanation is that the "lump" of clay in vs. 21 refers to national Israel. God has the right to divide Israel into two vessels: unbelieving Israel, which has now become a vessel of wrath (for "prepared", read fit or suited to destruction), and believing Israel, which, along with believing Gentiles has become a vessel of mercy. Any interpretation of Rom. 9 must account for the transition that Paul makes from national choice in vss. 1-5ff. and individual salvation in vss. 24-33. Therefore, neither view can claim that the other is completely out of context. The question becomes one of which transition is more believable, and makes the most sense of the Old Testament quotations. Calvinism and Arminianism Galatians 1:15,16 "But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother's womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles..." • Calvinists interpret this passage to mean that God irresistibly called Paul because he was elected to salvation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Five Points of Calvinism
    • TULIP The Five Points of Calvinism instructor’s guide Bethlehem College & Seminary 720 13th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55415 612.455.3420 [email protected] | bcsmn.edu Copyright © 2007, 2012, 2017 by Bethlehem College & Seminary All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, modified, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Scripture taken from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Copyright © 2007 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. • TULIP The Five Points of Calvinism instructor’s guide Table of Contents Instructor’s Introduction Course Syllabus 1 Introduction from John Piper 3 Lesson 1 Introduction to the Doctrines of Grace 5 Lesson 2 Total Depravity 27 Lesson 3 Irresistible Grace 57 Lesson 4 Limited Atonement 85 Lesson 5 Unconditional Election 115 Lesson 6 Perseverance of the Saints 141 Appendices Appendix A Historical Information 173 Appendix B Testimonies from Church History 175 Appendix C Ten Effects of Believing in the Five Points of Calvinism 183 Instructor’s Introduction It is our hope and prayer that God would be pleased to use this curriculum for his glory. Thus, the intention of this curriculum is to spread a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ. This curriculum is guided by the vision and values of Bethlehem College & Seminary which are more fully explained at bcsmn.edu. At the Bethlehem College & Semianry website, you will find the God-centered philosophy that undergirds and motivates everything we do.
    [Show full text]
  • Objections to the Doctrine of Total Depravity
    Biblical Soteriology: An Overview and Defense of the Reformed Doctrines of Salvation by Ra McLaughlin Total Depravity, Part 4 OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF TOTAL DEPRAVITY 1. The most obvious objection to the doctrine of total depravity is the objection that man is not so sinful that God must condemn him. 2. Another objection to the doctrine of total depravity states that all men can savingly believe and trust the gospel, while a corollary objection asserts that man cannot savingly believe the gospel in and of himself, but that God graciously grants all men (or all men who hear the gospel) this ability, which man must then exercise by his own freewill in order to be saved. Under this second system, not all who have the God- given ability to believe actually exercise this ability in saving faith. Most versions of this view hold that all mankind has received this enabling gift. 3. Some objections to the doctrine of total depravity are based on experience. They insist that experience demonstrates that man may desire to be saved, to do good, and to please God prior to coming to saving faith. If any of these things are true, then total depravity is false. 4.. Most objections to total depravity also insist that a command by God to do something implies that the people of whom the thing is commanded possess a corresponding ability to do the thing commanded. That is, God would not command the impossible. Therefore, since God commands all men to exercise saving belief in the gospel, all men have the ability savingly to believe the gospel (whether from natural or graciously granted ability).
    [Show full text]
  • Calvinism and Limited Atonement Isaiah 53:6; Hebrews 2:9 and Others
    CALVINISM AND LIMITED ATONEMENT ISAIAH 53:6; HEBREWS 2:9 AND OTHERS Text: Isaiah 53:6; Hebrews 2:9 Isaiah 53:6 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Hebrews 2:9 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. Introduction: Of the five points of Calvin’s philosophy, (and I call it "philosophy" instead of "theology" because in this particular point, it is 100% contrary to the revealed will of God as given to us in the Bible, therefore, it cannot properly be called "theology") the weakest link is his so-called false teaching on the "LIMITED ATONEMENT," or the "L" of the T.U.L.I.P. acronym of Calvinism. - 1 - It is interesting to me that this point is the center of this deadly flower. We will consider the Basic Definition, Blatant Distortion, and the Biblical Dispute, of Limited Atonement. 1. BASIC DEFINITION OF LIMITED ATONEMENT By “Limited Atonement” we refer to the belief which states that Christ did not die for “all or everyone” but rather died only for the elect. While it is true that only the saved benefit from Christ’s death on the cross, Christ died for all people. 1 John 2:1-2 1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not.
    [Show full text]
  • Total Depravity
    TULIP: A FREE GRACE PERSPECTIVE PART 1: TOTAL DEPRAVITY ANTHONY B. BADGER Associate Professor of Bible and Theology Grace Evangelical School of Theology Lancaster, Pennsylvania I. INTRODUCTION The evolution of doctrine due to continued hybridization has pro- duced a myriad of theological persuasions. The only way to purify our- selves from the possible defects of such “theological genetics” is, first, to recognize that we have them and then, as much as possible, to set them aside and disassociate ourselves from the systems which have come to dominate our thinking. In other words, we should simply strive for truth and an objective understanding of biblical teaching. This series of articles is intended to do just that. We will carefully consider the truth claims of both Calvinists and Arminians and arrive at some conclusions that may not suit either.1 Our purpose here is not to defend a system, but to understand the truth. The conflicting “isms” in this study (Calvinism and Arminianism) are often considered “sacred cows” and, as a result, seem to be solidified and in need of defense. They have become impediments in the search for truth and “barriers to learn- ing.” Perhaps the emphatic dogmatism and defense of the paradoxical views of Calvinism and Arminianism have impeded the theological search for truth much more than we realize. Bauman reflects, I doubt that theology, as God sees it, entails unresolvable paradox. That is another way of saying that any theology that sees it [paradox] or includes it is mistaken. If God does not see theological endeavor as innately or irremediably paradoxical, 1 For this reason the author declines to be called a Calvinist, a moderate Calvinist, an Arminian, an Augustinian, a Thomist, a Pelagian, or a Semi- Pelagian.
    [Show full text]
  • Calvinism Vs Wesleyan Arminianism
    The Comparison of Calvinism and Wesleyan Arminianism by Carl L. Possehl Membership Class Resource B.S., Upper Iowa University, 1968 M.C.M., Olivet Nazarene University, 1991 Pastor, Plantation Wesleyan Church 10/95 Edition When we start to investigate the difference between Calvinism and Wesleyan Arminianism, the question must be asked: "For Whom Did Christ Die?" Many Christians answer the question with these Scriptures: (Failing, 1978, pp.1-3) JOH 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (NIV) We believe that "whoever" means "any person, and ...that any person can believe, by the assisting Spirit of God." (Failing, 1978, pp.1-3) 1Timothy 2:3-4 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, (4) who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (NIV) 2PE 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (NIV) REV 22:17 The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life. (NIV) (Matthew 28:19-20 NIV) Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (20) and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
    [Show full text]
  • Foundations of Discipleship
    FOUNDATIONS FOR DISCIPLESHIP Systematic Theology Course Dr. William E. Bell INTRODUCTION This comprehensive course on the Doctrines of the Scriptures represents a complete study necessary for building a secure Biblical foundation into your life as a disciple of Jesus Christ. The Foundations For Discipleship Course consists of nine volumes, each of which is subdivided into twelve 45-minute audio units. Each unit is accompanied and supplemented by a downloadable study guide. Listen carefully to each audio message, and follow along in the printed material. Make notes on your printed study guide as needed, to help you grasp and retain the material. This will become your own personal notebook and can be used in training others. When needed, replay sections that you did not grasp the first time. It may be that the information is entirely new to you and needs to be run past you again, or perhaps you find that your mind wandered a bit. The great advantage of digital material over a live lecture is this flexibility of time, place and replay capabilities. The normal pace is one unit per week with the entire course taking two years to complete. The pace may be accelerated cautiously if you desire, but should be kept modest enough so not to hinder comprehension. Ideally, the course would be done in a small-group setting where each participant works through a specific unit on a given weekend. The Bible study group would then meet during the week to listen to that weeks audio unit again together accompanied by a time of sharing notes, discussion and prayer together.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nature and Extent of the Atonement in Lutheran
    THE N A T U R E A N D E X T E N T O F T H E ATONEMENT I N L U T H E R A N T H E O L O G Y DAVID SCAER, TH.D. I. The Problem The· conflict concerning the nature and extent of the atonement arose in Christian theology because of attempts to reconcile rationally apparently conflicting statements in the Holy Scriptures on the atone- ment and election. Briefly put, passages relating to the atonement are universal in scope including all men and those relating to election apply only to a limited number. Basically there have been three approaches to this tension between a universal atonement and a limited election. One approach is to understand the atonement in light of the election. Since obviously there are many who are not eventually saved, the atonement offered by Christ really applied not to them but only to those who are finally saved, i.e., the elect. This is the Calvinistic or Reformed view. The second approach understands the election in light of the atonement. This view credits each individual with the ability to make a choice of his own free will to believe in Christ. Since Christ died for all men and since man is responsible for his own damnation, therefore he at least cooperates with the Holy Spirit in coming to faith. This is the Arminian or synergistic view, also widely held in Methodism. The third view* is that of classical Lutheran theology. This position as set down in the Formula of Concord (1580) does not attempt to resolve what the Holy Scriptures state con- cerning atonement and election.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Aspects in the Design of Christ's Atonement
    Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry Vol. 2 No. 2 (Fall 2004): 85-98 Two Aspects in the Design of Christ’s Atonement Wayne S. Hansen Associate Professor of Theology Bethel Seminary of the East 1601 N. Limekiln Pike Dresher, Pennsylvania 19025 For well over three and a half centuries Christians have been divided over one aspect of Christ’s atonement. This topic has served to separate believer from believer, often with great animosity. The cleavage is so great that it has divided schools, denominational institutions, mission agencies, and local churches. Ironically, it has been labeled as a “non-essential” by at least one side in the debate. Yet the implications for this topic are significant for one’s approach to the church, evangelism, confidence in the sovereignty of God, and especially, Christology. The topic I am alluding to is limited atonement, to use its more recognized label. Some have preferred the term “definite atonement” or “particular redemption” to emphasize the positive focus of the doctrine and eliminate any suspicion of the value of Christ’s work. But whichever term is used the basic question remains. “Did God intend to save only the elect in the death of Christ or provide salvation for all?” Passionate defenses on each side of the issue have been offered. Frequently, tensions are so strong on this issue that one side does not hear what the other is saying. Each feels justified in her/his view and often refuses to look at the other’s argument. Not a few have stated that both are true and then dismissed the subject without seeing the inconsistency of their logic.
    [Show full text]
  • Total Depravity
    Here We Stand: Total Depravity INTRODUCTION Ø A brief review of the 5 Sola’s Ø Our objective over our remaining evenings together is to begin unpacking what is called in Reformed Theology, “The doctrines of grace”. We are going to devote one evening per each point to analyze what Scripture teaches concerning the nature of sin and the nature of God’s saving grace. 2 very important qualifiers to this study Ø #1 The division we are about to address within the Reformed church is not a division concerning the essentials of the Christian faith! Ø #2, although these doctrines are not essential to be a Christian, we believe they are essential to ascribe all the glory to God in salvation and that they grant the Christian the truest grounds for comfort and assurance. Arminianism’s First Point Ø “Man is never so completely corrupted by sin that he cannot savingly believe the gospel when it is put before him.” Ø In other words, they believe that man possesses the “ability” to respond to the gospel in and of himself. Man is able to comply with the gospel command to “repent and believe” apart from God’s regenerating grace. Ø And here’s the implication… salvation or damnation, ultimately will be dependent on the sinner’s choice. Ø The Synod of Dort’s teaching could be summarized under this counter point… “Total Depravity”. This has also been referred to as Radical Corruption. Erasmus and Luther Ø In 1524 Desiderius Erasmus, a Renaissance humanist and Catholic priest, was considered in his time as the foremost opponent to challenge Martin Luther and his teachings on the nature of saving grace.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nature of Atonement in the Theology of Jacobus Arminius
    JETS 53/4 (December 2010) 773–85 THE NATURE OF ATONEMENT IN THE THEOLOGY OF JACOBUS ARMINIUS j. matthew pinson* Jacobus Arminius is one of the best known and least studied theologians in the history of Christianity. His writings have been neglected by Calvinists and Arminians alike. Calvinists have disliked him because of his opposition to scholastic predestinarian theology. Most Arminians have neglected him because what little they have read of him reminds them more of Calvinism than they like. Arminius scholar Carl Bangs is correct when he says that most modern treatments of Arminius assume a definition of Arminianism that does not come from Arminius. Bangs states that most interpreters of Arminianism begin with a preconception of what Arminius should be expected to say, then look in his published works, and do not find exactly what they are looking for. They show impatience and disappointment with his Calvinism, and shift the inquiry into some later period when Arminianism turns out to be what they are looking for—a non-Calvinistic, synergistic, and perhaps semi-Pelagian system.1 This is the approach many scholars have taken toward Arminius regard- ing his doctrine of atonement. For example, the Calvinist scholar Robert L. Reymond has said that the Arminian theory of atonement is the governmental theory, which “denies that Christ’s death was intended to pay the penalty for sin.” He claims that the governmental theory’s “germinal teachings are in Arminius.”2 Similarly, well-known Wesleyan-Arminian scholar James K. Grider states: “A spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred in recent decades.
    [Show full text]
  • Biblical and Logical Warrant for Limited Atonement
    M. Howell 1-10-04 Biblical and Logical Warrant for Definite Atonement He entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing eternal redemption. -Hebrews 9:12 The crux of the entire debate surrounding limited atonement is whether Christ is a real Savior or a potential Savior. Did Christ actually or potentially accomplish His purpose for dying for our sins? It is my position that Christ's death actually accomplished its purpose, that is, that it ensured the salvation of His people rather than merely provide the possibility of salvation for everyone who believes. This, therefore, makes Christ’s atonement limited in its efficaciousness. David Steele and Curtis Thomas write, “Christ’s saving work was limited in that it was designed to save some and not others, but it was not limited in value for it was of infinite worth and would have secured salvation for everyone if this had been God’s intention.”1 But as we shall soon see, regardless of your theological assumptions, the atonement is limited. That is why I prefer the term definite atonement to limited atonement. I shall be arguing for definite atonement in two parts, the first part consisting of the Biblical basis for definite atonement, and the second part consisting of the Logical basis for definite atonement. This separation should in no way imply that the Bible should or even could be divorced from logic. God is a God of logic and His special revelation is consequently inherently logical.
    [Show full text]
  • "Calvinism Vs. Arminianism" by Mary Fairchild Updated July 03, 2019 One of the Most Potentially Divisive Debates in Th
    "Calvinism Vs. Arminianism" By Mary Fairchild Updated July 03, 2019 One of the most potentially divisive debates in the history of the church centers around the opposing doctrines of salvation known as Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinism is based on the theological beliefs and teaching of John Calvin (1509-1564), a leader of the Reformation, and Arminianism is based on the views of Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609). After studying under John Calvin's son-in-law in Geneva, Jacobus Arminius started out as a strict Calvinist. Later, as a pastor in Amsterdam and professor at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, Arminius' studies in the book of Romans led to doubts and rejection of many Calvinistic doctrines. In summary, Calvinism centers on the supreme sovereignty of God, predestination, the total depravity of man, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints. Arminianism emphasizes conditional election based on God's foreknowledge, man's free will through prevenient grace to cooperate with God in salvation, Christ’s universal atonement, resistible grace, and salvation that can potentially be lost. What exactly does all this mean? The easiest way to understand the differing doctrinal views is to compare them side by side. Compare Beliefs of Calvinism Vs. Arminianism God's Sovereignty The sovereignty of God is the belief that God is in complete control over everything that happens in the universe. His rule is supreme, and his will is the final cause of all things. Calvinism: In Calvinist thinking, God's sovereignty is unconditional, unlimited, and absolute. All things are predetermined by the good pleasure of God's will.
    [Show full text]