Calvinism and Arminianism: History of the Debate Brief Overview

Brief Overview

The modern debate of Predestination, today, centers on the doctrine of election. The doctrine of election is one of the most complicated and challenging issues of Calvinism. Not only is it hard to explain, but there is a lots of theological implications to holding opinion to one side (or the other) of this doctrine. Scripturally, the doctrine is complex because Scriptures seem to speak for both sides of the man-made argument. The problem is the man-made argument, not the Scriptures. The doctrine is very Biblical, although the argument divides people by misunderstanding and forces an artificial false dichotomy.[1]

Calvinists hold that God chooses certain people to have his special favor upon.[2] God’s selection of those for salvation is absolute and unconditional. God chooses people because He loves them, it pleases Him to do so. God only takes part in salvation. While Arminians hold that Christ died for all men and (all men) have the ability to choose faith in Jesus Christ. Man takes part in salvation with God. Followers of both Calvin and Arminius have taken extreme views of both positions and twisted each other’s words to make the argument more complex.

Wayne Grudem, a reformed theologian defines election as “an act of God before creation in which he chooses some people to be saved, not on account of any foreseen merit in them, but only because of his sovereign good pleasure.[3]” The reformed position makes it clear that God is in full control and does as He pleases. Man has little say in the matter. Man cannot earn salvation in the first place. Arminians agree that individuals are foreordained to salvation, that God chooses one over the other. Where Arminians disagree is on the point of “unconditional” or “absolute” predestination or election. Arminians have gone so far to say that Calvinism is fatalistic and kills evangelism.[4] Arminians ask Calvinists “why then should we live holy if we are just God’s puppets/robots?” And “ Does not this doctrine contradict free will?” And “if all is ordained, why evangelize?”

The Calvinist response to these objections is not “double predestination.” Rather, a deeper study of the Word. The Word of God presents the out-working of our salvation in a personal relationship with God. God’s act of election was neither impersonal nor mechanical.[5]The New Testament shows us that our choices in life do matter. We are not robots. It is also clear in the Bible, that we as Christians must preach the Gospel. Election should comfort the saint, give them reason to praise God, and encourage evangelism. Both reasonable Calvinists and Arminians can agree with these Biblical truths. So much of the debate of election is in the details, it is an interworking of a non-essential.

Is it possible that man works with God on salvation? That God bases his foreknowledge of predestination on man’s faith? No. Scripture never speaks of our faith as the reason God chose us. Election based on something good in us would be the beginning of salvation by merit. Think about the idea of unconditional grace. It is not earned. It is a gift. Predestination based on foreknowledge does not give people free choice. In fact, that is the definition and Calvin’s point exactly! Election must be unconditional![6] While many Arminians are “reformed” and believe the “Solas” of our faith, somehow the understanding of “Grace Alone” is not enough for them. Man having a choice over God would contradict both Calvin and Arminius, in their views of God’s predestining and a reformed idea of Grace Alone.

The modern debate between what is known as Calvinism and Arminiansim centers also on the acronym of T.U.L.I.P. which was devised to summarize the five points of Calvinism.[7]The five points are: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Preservation of the saints. Total depravity means that all men are sinners by nature. While these are the main points of the modern debate, it is not really what John Calvin focused on, and while Arminius and his followers did construct five points of Arminianism (which is separate from the TULIP or five points of Calvinism), it was not meant to go against ALLCalvinists, just the extreme ones.

---

[1] I have dedicated entire research papers to this topic alone. I recommend this article:MacArthur Jr, John. “Is the Doctrine of Election Biblical?” Adapted from The Body Dynamic. (1996.) Christian Art Distributors. Retrieved fromhttp://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/GTYW02.htm accessed on Aug. 1st, 2009.

[2] Millard Erickson. Christian Theology. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), pg. 929.

[3] Wayne Grudem. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine.( Grand Rapids, Mi: Zonderzan, 1994), pg. 670.

[4] Milard Erickson. Christian Theology. Pg. 934.

[5] Wayne Grudem. Systematic Theology. Pg. 674.

[6] Ibid, pg. 676-679.

[7] See appendix A

Calvinism and Arminianism: History of the Debate Introduction

Introduction

The soteriological debate between God’s Sovereignty and man’s free will (which includes issues of election, depravity, predestination, and atonement) has been heated and cooled many times through-out the past three centuries. The debate continues to be relevant in the 21^st Century as seminarians, pastors, ministers, professors and theologians search for the most Biblical response. The debate is not a simple one. Besides the confusion over theological terms and finding the real Biblical truth, a lot of concepts have been tweaked by bias over the span of history.

History tells a story that needs to be heard. Not everyone who is familiar with “T.U.L.I.P.” is familiar with where “T.U.L.I.P.” came from. Many people know the concepts of Predestination and Free Will, they know the “theological grids” and all the concepts to debate unfortunately these same people do not know what real life history brings to the argument. They do not know the story behind the theology. Dare I say, John Calvin and Jacob Arminius would both be rolling in their (respective) graves if they had seen or heard the arguments people are making today about the theology they each supported. A lot of the hype in debate is based on assumptions and exaggerations of both Calvin and Arminius, not on their actual teachings. Worse, much of the modern hype in this debate is exaggerations of false assumptions! Recent history has taken the debate much outside of what these theologians ever intended it to be.

Certain theological topics keep coming up throughout history. What is interesting is that the topics dominating the debate between Calvin and Arminius were not novel topics. They had been thought and even debated about long before Calvin’s lifetime. Augustine and Pelagius, would be the first really well documented “debate” on God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. Luther had an interesting and related theological response to Erasmus regarding this topic. Somehow it is the “Calvin V. Arminius” conflict that is most remembered, even though these two men never even met in real life, unlike the other two situations! Calvin died when Arminius was only four years old.

This is precisely the concern of this paper. If Calvin and Arminius never met in real life to debate God’s Sovereignty, why are these two men’s “theological grids” always compared to one another’s? One must examine the history of the life of John Calvin, his followers and his theology and then also one must study the history of the life of Jacob Arminius, his followers and his theology to truly comprehend not only what these two men truly had to say but how followers of these men have influenced and skewed the debate and the theological grids to be different from what these original men had in mind.

My Online Seminary Experience with Liberty

Recently Michael Patton wrote on his Parchment and Pen blog "WHY TRADITIONAL ONSITE SEMINARY IS STILL (BY FAR) THE BEST OPTION." The post got me thinking and questioning my own choice of getting my MDiv online. While for the most part I agree with all the points Michael makes I wanted to write about my experience. Michael's post brought up a lot of great points that got me thinking...and asking, what I am personally missing out on a a DLP? How is my situation good? bad? Is my experience positive? Legitimate? Etc...

I am in pursuit of my MDiv with the Liberty Distance Learning Program. I am very fortunate to be in the situation that I am in. I choose the online option for financial reasons. Not only is the online option cheaper than going, but also I have more flexibility and convenience with work. This is not to say I could not have gone to Liberty and gotten a job in Lynchburg, Va...but with the online option I can work anywhere I am, which right now happens to be Lancaster/Columbus, Ohio. Lancaster is where I am really involved in my church. I am on the elder/advisor team. I am always helping any way I can. I am leading outreaches to the community, preaching from time to time and teaching a small group class.

As far as in mentoring and discipleship, it is my own personal experience that has made this work. I am personally mentored by my pastor at my church. I agree that this is an important thing that Liberty Distance Learning does not provide. Also I do have a really amazing group of friends that are my age whom I often get a lot of encouragement, fellowship, and challenge from. I realize that not all online students have this.

Liberty has done some things in their online Seminary program that also makes the program excellent. While it does not fill-in all the gaps and problems (like the ones Michael mentioned and I wrote about above) below I am going to share on how the program does meet some of the other problems Michael writes about.

One is that program does require giving sermons in front of live audiences. While I realize that being ripped apart by both peers and your professor who truly want you to grow is a little different, in my situation, I was fortunate to have both my pastor, another pastor, the professor and few peers who did rip apart my sermons and presentation/delivery of the sermons which did help me grow. And I also had a ton of encouragement from church members and other friends my age who gave me positive feedback.

While there are other aspects of the on-site experience that cannot be mimicked online my experience so far is pretty positive but I owe much credit to my church and my friends.

Tim Kimberly wrote a response or another side of the issue in Insider’s Critique of Seminary Online">AN INSIDER’S CRITIQUE OF SEMINARY ONLINE. Here also I wanted to write about my experience at Liberty. Tim makes some excellent points as well. Having Seminar online is a good option in some situations but it must be done carefully and in such a way as not to hurt the reputation of the Seminary.

I think that some of the things Liberty is doing are very helpful in protecting their reputation. First the process of application and getting into the program did require a little bit of work. While some of it could have been faked I think that what Liberty required was very reasonable and helped protect their reputation. The requirements besides just an application and fee included a pastoral recommendation, a personal testimony, and character assessment/testimony from three friends. Not everyone is accepted into the program.

Another question Tim presents is how do online Seminaries determine the character of students away from their coursework. What is the character of the person, not just the student – what is their real life like? This is important because ever graduate of the Seminary (including online students) are stamped with that University’s “seal of approval.” This person is cut out and endorsed by our University to do ministry: be chaplains, pastors, etc. The University as Tim points out needs to be considered for legal reasons, reputation reasons and general for the good of Christianity and the good of the next generation of church leadership!!!

These are all good and solid points. My experience with Liberty has been interesting in this regard. I am curious after reading these two articles, how is Liberty’s reputation? What will employers, churches, ministries think of Liberty and me because I went to Liberty (online!)?

There are some things that Liberty is doing that I can personally say that do look at a student’s character. In the discipleship and evangelism classes the coursework required that we as students shared about our real life experiences. Evangelism reports required us to share our faith and then simply journal/report what happened. Ministry Application Project and Discipleship Plan Report required us to take action, report on how we took action, interact with the principles of the coursework in our real life ministry and set goals for the future. A lot of emphasis is on real life interaction.

I understand that all of this could be fabricated, broad and not very personal. But students who are very honest with themselves (like myself) are not short on the details of the real life emphasis. I have been very transparent and honest with my professors. They know me and can see me for who I am. While I am not sure if it is the same way with all the students, I know that for me, many of the professors are repeat professors, so they know if I am being honest and growing from course to course.

It is an interesting discussion. It has really got me thinking. I am sure I am missing out and some challenging and some encouraging and helpful learning. Although at the same time I am learning a lot and doing other things that cannot be done at an onsite experience. Daily I am interacting in the real world with real people at my real life job. Developing friendship and acquaintance with real people and ministering to them. I am learning about people and how to minister to them in a real life setting. Not only that but I am able to get ahead financially. Working a real job is saving money instead of spending money onsite.

My last point is really a question. What is Liberty’s reputation? Is it bad that Liberty is not one of the ATS schools? Liberty is the largest evangelical University and third in nation of all online universities. Liberty was founded by Jerry Farwell who was generally a pretty conservative person theologically, although he is also known for letting just about anyone go to Liberty University (undergrad institute not Seminary) despite theological diversity/differences. What do you think of Liberty’s reputation?

Need Money for Seminary?
Searching for a seminary scholarship is tough. Everywhere you turn there are requirements. Degree track, financial need, denominations, demographics —what seminarian has time for all that!?!

Now there is a scholarship that is open to everyone and doesn’t take a week’s worth of late nights to apply for. At www.SeminaryScholarship.com all you have to do is watch a demonstration of Logos Bible Software and fill out a brief application. Once your application is submitted you will be entered to win a $1,000.00 scholarship AND a digital theological library that, in print, would cost over $6,100.00!

www.SeminaryScholarship.com

Is Baptism necessary for salvation?

Act 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

1. Nothing man can do can save them, no works can help fulfill, complete or contribute to salvation. We are saved by grace through faith. By grace means that salvation is entirely a gift of God, not procured via water baptism (or any work!) (Act_10:43 [cf. Act_2:47]; Act_13:38-39; Act_2:48; Act_15:11; Act_16:30-31; Act_20:21; Act_26:18); (
Baptism is a work therefore it cannot save or complete salvation. I have tons of other Scriptures to back salvation as a gift and salvation is of grace and nothing man can do can save them.


2. What is the Gospel? How is one “saved” consistently through-out the Bible?
Rom. 10:13 and just a few verses before this one in Acts 2:22

3. Let’s take a deeper look at the verse in question:
Act 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
A. Only by Jesus are we forgiven, not by baptism
B. What they are receiving is the GIFT of the Holy Spirit. They have already received the Holy Spirit as a regenerator, that is they have already received the Holy Spirit when they called on the His Name in salvation. The gift of the Holy Spirit , is like the gift of teaching, the gift of speaking in tongues. God enables these gifts after baptism. It is the first command we are to be obedient too and He wants to empower us after we have made the public confession.
C. The verse is not to be understood as teaching that the gift of the Spirit was conditional upon baptism because in other places through-out Scripture we see that gift of the Spirit is not dependent on baptism. These are two clauses” “be baptized” and “you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” that are separate statements.
D. Peter gives a promise that you will receive the GIFT OF THE SPIRIT. It is a promise not a conditional statement.
E. We see in Scripture that men were allowed to be saved without an immediate baptism: Acts 10, Cornelius’ prayers have been heard and he is saved yet they wait several days before baptism.

4. Finally Baptism is to be both Spiritual and physical. We are spiritually baptized when we accept Christ as Lord and call upon his name. Then we are commanded to make that a public statement with a physical baptism. It is a necessary commandment of obedience, but it is not required for salvation.

Sources:
John Gill
not that forgiveness of sin could be procured either by repentance, or by baptism; for this is only obtained by the blood of Christ; but the apostle advises these awakened, sensible, repenting, and believing souls, to submit to baptism, that by it their faith might be led to Christ, who suffered and died for their sins, who left them buried in his grave, and who rose again for their justification from them; all which is, in a most lively manner, represented in the ordinance of baptism by immersion: the encouragement to it follows,
grace of the Spirit, as a regenerator and sanctifier; for that they had already; and is necessary, as previous to baptism; unless it should mean confirmation of that grace, and stability in it, as it appears from Act_2:42 they afterwards had; but rather the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, particularly the gift of speaking with tongues, which Christ had received from the Father, and had now shed on his apostles; see Act_19:5.

Baker NT Commetary
What is this gift of the Spirit? Peter puts the noun gift in the singular, not in the plural. By contrast, Paul writes to the Corinthian church about the gifts of the Holy Spirit, among them wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, prophecy, tongues, and interpretation (1Co_12:8-11, 1Co_12:28-31; 1Co_14:1-2). But to the people who were present at Pentecost Peter says that the baptized believer will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The expression gift appears in the passage about the outpouring of the Spirit on the Samaritans; Simon the sorcerer tried to buy this gift with money (Act_8:20). The term also occurs in the account of Peter's visit to Cornelius, who with his household received the gift of the Holy Spirit (Act_10:45; see also Act_11:17). From these passages we are able to learn that this gift refers to the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. Notice, however, that in Act_2:38-41 Luke makes no mention of the converts speaking in tongues (Act_2:4) or of the apostles laying their hands on the converts so that they might receive the Spirit (Act_8:17). We assume, therefore, that “speaking in tongues and laying on of hands were not considered prerequisites for receiving the Spirit.”

The context of the Pentecost account indicates that the gift of the Spirit is not dependent on baptism. The two clauses “be baptized” and “you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” are separate statements. In a detailed study of this point Ned B. Stonehouse observes, “One may conclude with confidence that Act_2:38 is not to be understood as teaching that the gift of the Spirit was conditional upon baptism.” A study in Acts on baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit reveals that these two are related but do not necessarily follow each other. Hence, in verse Act_2:38 Peter instructs the people to repent and to be baptized; then he adds the promise (in the future tense) that they “will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”


2 other recommended articles :
Can I Be Saved without Getting Baptized? CRI
Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation? Matt Slick/CARM

Frustrations at work

I started working at UPS Freight in Sept. of 2008. Through-out my first year, my family had to put up with me even when I was extremely frustrated because of work. I do not really like my job that much, it is easy but it comes with a lot of frustration especially when the managers are stressed. Then the loaders get stressed and then everyone takes out their stress on the unloaders. There a lot of other things at work that cause stress and frustration besides that though. The point is I would come home and complain about my job a lot.

Anyways, some of the things that cause frustration at work has not been effecting me a lot recently. Possibly I am getting better at my job, maybe I am becoming a better/patient person, but more likely I am getting used to the frustration and dealing with it properly.

Ever since Late December, I have been less frustrated. There have been three key things that helped me out:

1. Working 2 jobs in the month of November was a nightmare. I literally did not sleep. I worked on school in-between an 8-hour job and another 6-8 hour job. Having so much on my plate made me prioritize. I had to focus on just surviving so I did my best at work and tried not to worry about all the stress.

2. Friends at work telling my to "slow down" and relax. I work hard, they said 'too hard'. They told me how it is not worth working really hard because then the company will 'take advantage' of you. Honestly I still do not agree with everything they are saying and I want to work hard to glorify God, not man, but I took some of their advice and it has actually has helped me. I am not as stressed out and frustrated.

3. My step-father, Jim, told me to think about the customer. Besides working hard for God and obeying authority as God commands. Another good motivation, for me, is to think about the customers. The mangers my not know what is best or know what they are doing completely but that is not my job to worry about. I do what they tell me to do and do it for the customer.

Ever since I came back form my "vacation," (right after all three of the points just took place), I have felt more comfortable at work than ever. I still think that some people have no idea what they are doing but I do not have to worry about those things anymore. The work is easy. Most of the people are nice and I have developed a lot of relationships there. God is pointing out people he wants me to pray for and get to know better.

I am not sure why I am blogging this to be honest. I know that I still dislike my job but I am more relaxed there and not as frustrated as I have been.

What to do with the Intermediate state?

In Christian eschatology, the intermediate state or interim state refers to a person's existence between one's death and resurrection at Christ's return. This period is "intermediate" between death and the last judgment. I am focuses on the Protestant responses. I personally do not see purgatory or limbo states as a Biblically acceptable responses.

This post by no means is going to be very detailed. I am mostly wanting to ask a question and she what my audience thinks about the topic. What I think many Protestant Christians like to believe in "foretaste of final state." Basically this is the idea that when your body dies and returns to dust while the soul immediately separates from the dead body and goes to be in the presence of God while waiting for the resurrection, as is the explanation in the Westminster Confession. I personally grew up taught this way and never really challenged it or thought it through.

Although recently one of my good friends sat down with me and showed me some insightful Scriptures and shared some interesting thoughts on another possibility called Psychopannychism or "Soul sleep." This is the idea that once the body dies the soul is in an unconsciousness sleep mode from the time of physical death till the time of the resurrection. Basically time is suspended for that soul until they are resurrected or in some rare cases "awoken." A few examples of souls awakening are:

1. 1 Sam 28 - King Saul consults a medium. The medium awakens Samuel.
2. The Transfiguration scene where Elijah and Moses are "awoken."
3. Jesus speaks of the physically dead: Lazarus (in Jn 11)and Jairus’s only daughter (in Lk. 8:52,53).
You see for Jesus they were not completely, entirely dead yet: not physically and spiritually. And so all those who have died since Adam sinned have been sleeping. Adam and Eve, Abraham, Noah, David, Daniel, Paul and the disciples, all the protestant reformers and martyrs have been asleep. They all are waiting for the voice of the Lord to come forth. John 3:13 says No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.
And this theory fits in line with 1 Thes. 4:13-18's explanation of the coming of the Lord and the resurrection of the dead.

So this leaves the question of: how do we explain the passages that suggest that the dead are immediately with the Lord in Heaven? First off it has to do with time being suspended for the physically dead soul. For the soul that is sleeping the time between his/her body's death and the resurrection of that body upon the Lord's return seems immediate. There is no lapse in time.


So my question is: how do you understand this idea of "intermediate state?" Does this bit on psychopannychism change your opinion on the matter at hand or do you think that souls go immediately to Heaven upon death?

Interesting shipping routes that work

Recently I worked as a seasonal shipper for a shipping/logistics team for a large company. Here are some interesting routes that the products went on a ride for before arriving at the final destination...and why/how it works

product manufactured/produced in cin was shipped/bought by the company I work for in Columbus the next stop is Covington, Ky back to cin (to a store)

Here is another similar one I thought was intersting: Cin - Columbus - Covington, Ky - Lexington, Ky.

Some backtracking occurs:
product from Il shipped to Columbus then back to In.

Here is the most interesting/ zig zagging one: product starts in nj is shipped to Columbus then to covington then to cin

Here is an explanation:

What happens is that the company I work for is huge. They buy product from several companies. And they buy a TON of product. Then my company has to decide how much of each product is going to one of its stores. So we have to place a shipping label on each box. Anyways, after all the product is labeled then they are sorted and shipped to the correct location. All I do is shipping. All I had to do was place the labeled box on a conveyor belt and let the machines do all the work. The conveyor belt has scanners to read the labels and shots the box to the correct door and then the loader loads each box off of the conveyor belt.

Anyways, since we buy a massive supply of product, the product comes to me on a skid with shipping labels going to all locations. So while it seems odd that a product made in Cin is going back to CIn. There are some good reasons. the product needed to be processed and shipped to a store. The manufacturer just produces the goods, they do not care where it goes. Secondly all I do is ship. The logistics have been thought through by someone who has more responsibilities. Finally, all the back-tracking actually makes some sense too. The reason why the product going to cin goes to pit first is because how the logistics are set up. The Columbus hub does not have a direct to Cin, but cov does. So we see a lot of routes like this. Depends on where the product is manufactured, where we have a shipping hub, and where the store that the product (final destination).

Living in the moment in worship

I recently attended a worship event that was a little more charismatic than I am used to but it really was a great event.

The event really opened my eyes a little more to different worship styles and helped me see just how limited my view of worship is. Of course I have been to charismatic churches and worship events before but this was just a small "community" worship event and there were people from all denominations there so it was not limited to or focused on any charismatic sect.

As a musician I have a bad habit of focusing on the performance aspects of worship: the music, beat, the musicians, etc and sometimes this makes me less focused on actually worshipping.

Another nasty aspect of me is that I am thinker/reflector type. So I enjoy dreaming up ways to do the same song a different way or arrange the stage a certain way...again side tracking me from true worship. I like to selfishly think about me.I am not one who lives in the moment. I like to think and plan things out.

At this event we had gone through almost an hour of straight worship nonstop...and my barriers were finally breaking down. It was just me worshiping God and not focusing on anything else. The worship leader was really feeling the the Lord's presence and the mode of worship. He was playing more reflective and slower songs than before. He stopped one song and just laid on the floor in worship. He cried out "soak Him in....in this moment, worship Him."

I had not really thought about this idea of just soaking in the Lord's presence, just sitting there with God. I have done this before but I never really thought about it in a worship night setting before. It was delightful. My mind began to wonder as I worshipped God and I started praying. Then the leader said, "Just be with God in adoration and soak Him in. Do not worry about asking for requests, just worship God in this moment. Soak Him in."

I stopped praying for the prayer request and went back to to trying to "soak Him in." This was still new for me. I began to jot things down (these thoughts that I am not blogging) and remembered again that this is exactly the problem I (was writ ting about/now blogging about) - I am being all type A thinking and reflecting as all I am suppose to be doing is soaking in God.

Once I finally stopped and just focused on Him, it was a blissful, peaceful thing. I was just with God. Hanging out with Him. God loves simply to spend time with me. He just wanted me to love him and to be filled with Him. He wanted me to be still and listen.

It was simple yet hard to explain. It was surrender. I gave up my plans. I waited on the Lord. I remembered how good He is and How He has blessed me. I was living in the moment in worship.