Mistakes made by Calvinists AND Arminians

To begin with, I was a 4 point arminian for 22 of my 23 years so I am well accustomed to what all of it entails. Now that I understand and accept the doctrines of grace, I feel that there are certain things that just 'go wrong' in this entire debate. Here are a few things:

#1- When one side assumes the other side doesn't believe the Bible is true. Let's be honest, to be an Arminian you don't have to reject the Bible. The same is true as a Calvinist. I believed the Bible was 100% true in my years as an Arminian and I think I am even more convinced of this as a Calvinist. The questions raised in discussions on sovereignty ultimately fall on interpretation of scripture- not validity of scripture. When both sides recognize this they can begin to intelligently debate without namecalling.

#2- When either side will debate endlessly about something they haven't studied. I'll be honest- I was a wise fool when I held my Arminian viewpoint. I thought I had the right answer just because it was MY answer- and hadn't read more than a few articles on the subject. It wasn't until I did extensive study into the matter by reading books from both sides, pamphlets, webpages, etc. that I realized how deep the issue really is. As an Arminian I wouldn't have been convinced by an ignorant Calvinist- and as a Calvinist I don't give a second glance to ignorant Arminians.

#3- Ultimately only scripture will convince. Your oft-repeated post, "You just need to see the light" doesn't mean squat. When I was an Arminian- it wasn't the words of Calvinists (in person or in books) that convinced me of the doctrines of grace. It was good old fashioned Bible study. Recognize this when you debate. You may offer suggestions- but no one will change their mind unless they let God work on their heart.

#4- Both sides have bad examples- so don't appeal to argument from 'people who believe like you do are this way.' Let's face it- on one end of the spectrum you have hyper-Calvinists that refuse to witness because it's all in God's hands anyways, and on the other side you have people afraid to witness because they may inadvertantly send someone to hell (seen this personally). Either extreme is dangerous. It is said that hyper-Calvinism is a house with no door, and Arminianism is a door with no house. Recognize in your debates that pointing to extreme examples of the 'opposition' is pointless. The question should be: Is Calvinism scriptural?

#5- Recognize what you are. If you had told me I was an Arminian when I WAS an Arminian I would have scoffed at you. Why? Because I didn't even have my definitions right. I hear many Arminians say, "I'm a Biblicicst." Well, so am I, but we're not talking about your view of the Bible- but election. Simply put- the word "Arminian" is used to denote a person who has objections to Calvinism (any of the 5 points in TULIP). Some people call themselves 1, 2, 3, or 4 point Calvinists- but this is problematic. The 5 stand or fall together. Don't label yourself if you don't understand the label- and don't deny a label on such grounds either. I personally do not like the term 'Calvinist' but understand that it must be used to denote someone that accepts the doctrines of grace. On this same note, an Arminian should not get upset at that term either- He follows Jacob Arminius no more than a Calvinist follows John Calvin. These are terms of convenience and should be understood by both sides if fruitful debate is desired.

I'm sure you can think of other areas both sides need to work on. These are just some of my thoughts in the matter.

In Christ,

Daniel Allen
www.pre-evangelism.com

 

Anyone's thoughts?

 

I must admit Wes that your comments are a tad more venemous than usual. Wake up on the wrong side of the bed today?

Alright, you are correct that I had no 'beliefs' at age 1 but I certainly did at age 5 (when I got saved), so perhaps I might revise my statement 'I have been an Arminian 17 out of the 18 years I've been saved.' Getting upset so soon proves that you are approaching this debate emotionally instead of logically. This is a common trademark of zealous Arminians. Now the question is: do I lack credibility for my age? I am probably at the age many men begin preaching (out of Bible school). I am 7 years older than Charles Spurgeon was when he began preaching. Does age have any bearing on truth? I don't recall the scriptures ever saying that 23 year olds were incapable of discovering truth. Perhaps you could enlighten me o old and wise one?

I agree that indoctrination IS a powerful tool. I had been indoctrinated to Arminianism but it was by study I became a Calvinist. You can read that story here: http://www.pre-evangelism.com/learn/theology_articles/soteriology/calvinismsub/howcalvinist.htm

I marvel at how emotional you seem. Such foolish words shouldn't come from someone so old.

Scripture was what convinced me Calvinism was true. Books verified what I found in scripture. I sought to fully understand all of the nuances of election and therefore made it a personal study. This is not wrong to do. I had not read a single book for or against Calvinism when I became a Calvinist. I simply read the NT through twice and when confronted with TULIP for the first time realized, 'This is Biblical.' Those who claim Calvinists believe what they do on a lack of scripture are ignorant. Here is my scriptural proof: http://www.pre-evangelism.com/learn/theology_articles/soteriology/whycalvinist.htm

This quote finally reveals your ignorance to the doctrines of grace. Not a single Calvinist relies on John Calvin for the truth of free grace- and not one Calvinist claims to follow John Calvin. We did not invent the term 'Calvinist' just as we did not invent the term 'Christian.' You use this term to refer to people who believe how we do. But then I explained all this in #5 of this thread. Were you reading or busy yelling at the monitor?

I can find the doctrines of grace in many of the words of Christ, so from hense (with you) I will call it 'Christianism.' Please tell me why you hate me and my Christianism?

In Christ,

Daniel Allen
www.pre-evangelism.com

 

I hope Mike and Wes- you guys can see that you've taken what I felt was general admonition to both sides and turned it around as a personal attack on my age and who I supposedly follow. I follow Christ (if that wasn't clear by this point). I became a Calvinist because I read the Bible. I haven't read much of anything by John Calvin and only some from Spurgeon. If you were to ask what the single most voluminous source I've studied in my research on election I would have to reply: "The writings of Paul." I have other threads to reply to so I'll let your attacks stand for others to see and marvel at.

In Christ,

Daniel Allen
www.pre-evangelism.com

 

Wes- I don't call myself a Calvinist. You do remember? I call myself a Christian.

"Whatever," thanks for your comments. While the 5 points of Arminianism were definitely around before TULIP, they were created in opposition to the doctrines of grace (even if they weren't put down systematically). I see where you're coming from tho. Semantics really.

Dan

 

I am man enough to admit when I have inadvertantly contradicted myself. Allow me to clear up what I meant by 'I don't call myself a Calvinist.' When faced with a choice, I will call myself a Christian and do not cling to the term Calvinism. I know that the term must be used of convenience so you will know what we are talking of. I do not wear 'calvinism' as a badge of honor. I follow the doctrines of grace laid out in the Bible that is today called 'Calvinism.' It may so be called something else in 50 years. When that happens I will grudgingly use that title to describe my beliefs (tho preferably still a Christian). The reason my article is called 'why I am a Calvinist' is because no one would have any idea where I stand at a glance if I titled the article, 'why I believe the Biblical view of election.' I suppose I could change the title of the article but I have better things to do. Forgive me for the faux pas. I am only human after all

Better to contradict myself than to contradict the scriptures.

In Christ,

Daniel Allen