Calvinism vs Arminianism? Why either/or? Why not both?

I'm channeling my inner DA Carson with this answer, so though I whole-heartedly agree with what I've written below, know that the articulation of my position has been heavily influence by Carson (and others).

The issue is, among other things, a matter assurance. For those who hold to non-reformed theology, the issue of assurance of salvation rests with the believer himself (or herself). For those who espouse reformed theology, on the other hand, the issue of security ultimately rests with God.

RC Sproul, I believe, once described our [reformed] eternal security in terms of a mother holding her baby. It isn't the baby's strength that matters, for the baby has none. It is the mother's strength that keeps the baby secure in her arms.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

I see we are on at least page 4, so a disclaimer is necessary, I am responding to the OP only and have not looked at the follow-on posts.

I am a non-Cal, but not a full blooded Arminian. I believe the P of the tulip, OSAS, is valid theology. I believe the Arminians are also right in their beliefs that Christ died for all mankind, and not only for the elect. Of course, He died for both. And like Arminians, I believe we were chosen individually for salvation through faith in the truth, thus a conditional election..

However, I part ways with both views, in that firstly, I believe fallen unregenerate people can receive, understand, and respond to spiritual milk, according to 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, where Paul spoke to new Christians as to "men of flesh" using milk.

Secondly, I believe we are chosen individually for salvation during our lifetime, not before the foundation of the world. Thus my view of Ephesians 1:4 differs from both the Cals and the Arms. This verse addresses the corporate election of the target group of God's redemption plan, thus when God chose His Redeemer, He chose in Him corporately those His Redeemer would redeem.

 

That isn’t necessarily the case. “Calvinism” is not about Calvin, per se. it usually refers primarily to a reformed soteriology.

As for myself, I rarely if ever read Calvin. I’ve never read The Institutes. If I have any debt to Calvin it is to look into the text of Scripture to see what it actually says, not what I want it to say.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

While my interaction with Atheists is limited, I too have noted they use Calvinism as a whipping boy. They show how Calvinism seems flawed, but are unwilling to engage in discussion of non-Cal doctrine.

So the same pattern you (Delizzle) identified in the OP, that people seem willing to offer copy and paste arguments against Chiristianity (Atheists) or non-Cals (Cal leaning folks) which actually are not applicable to non-Cal/Arm folks and non-RCC folks.

 

And one of the reasons I have been using the term Monergist vice Calvinist is to disarm opponents of Calvinism from making the charge that Calvinists believe everything Calvin espoused. Spurgeon famously said, "Calvinism is the Gospel" but no one would accused him of holding to paedobaptism or Presbyterian ecclesiology. Of course, opponents of Calvinism know this already but they love to poke Calvinists in the eye with this bogus charge.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

Actually, we calvinists do not get the theology from Calvin, nor Augustine, even though both of them affirmed it, but from Jesus and the Apostles themselves!

 

It isn’t counterproductive if the splits are due to wrong doctrines or heresies.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Not totally wrong as in nothing right, but not as correct in regards to salvation as Calvinism would be....

 

Calvinism is not the Gospel, but the bet way to understanding what the Gospel means!