Calv vs. Arm - Practical Application?

[Singalphile]

I've been reading through these Calv/Arm threads for a week or so. It's not quite as boring a debate as I once thought, but it seems even more irrelevant and impractical than ever!

What in my life would need to change if I were persuaded that Calvinism/Reformed Theology is biblical? There apparently aren't many (or any) Calvinists who post here much, so I ask the same of the Arminian or non-Calvinist: What is supposed to change in a person's life when he or she turns away from Calvinism?

Is there anything really? In the past, present, or future, should or will anything actually be different depending on which view is more correct?

After reading hundreds of posts about this, those are my only questions. I remain non-Calvinist, but Calvinism has some decent and interesting points. That's fine. I hope I never have to debate the matter with anyone. If I do end up in that position, I think I'll just flip through the Bible and argue against Calvinism from whatever 10 random pages I land on.

[steve]

I've been reading through these Calv/Arm threads for a week or so. It's not quite as boring a debate as I once thought, but it seems even more irrelevant and impractical than ever!

I have to agree with you. Imagine those who think it is a matter to divide the church over!

What in my life would need to change if I were persuaded that Calvinism/Reformed Theology is biblical? There apparently aren't many (or any) Calvinists who post here much, so I ask the same of the Arminian or non-Calvinist: What is supposed to change in a person's life when he or she turns away from Calvinism?

Nothing, necessarily. If he has been living a saintly life, seeking to spread the kingdom of God, as a Calvinist, then he would continue doing so. It's just that now he will have a reason to do so consistent with his theology.

Is there anything really? In the past, present, or future, should or will anything actually be different depending on which view is more correct?

It's all a question of back-story. Why are we what we are—saved or lost, I mean? Is it our fault, or is it God's?

After reading hundreds of posts about this, those are my only questions. I remain non-Calvinist, but Calvinism has some decent and interesting points. That's fine. I hope I never have to debate the matter with anyone. If I do end up in that position, I think I'll just flip through the Bible and argue against Calvinism from whatever 10 random pages I land on.

It can probably be done. Every command, and every complaint that God utters, are arguments against total depravity and irresistible grace.

[mattrose]

Well, if you're talking full-blown, hard-core, taken-to-its-logical-conclusions calvinism.... there'd be a pretty huge practical application in that that God wouldn't be worthy of our worship (not that genuine worship would even be possible in that scenario!).

[Singalphile]

Thanks for the responses, with which I agree.

I expect that most answers would involve words like "realize", "understand", etc. This is all I find online. Even if true, I wouldn't call those practical applications. The practical applications would be the specific things you do or say differently once you come to this new personal understanding.

For example, I think I heard somewhere that Calvinists don't give "altar calls". I don't know if that's true of if it has anything to do with Calvinism or Reformed Theology. Gotta go.

[RICHinCHRIST]

For example, I think I heard somewhere that Calvinists don't give "altar calls". I don't know if that's true of if it has anything to do with Calvinism or Reformed Theology. Gotta go.

Most Calvinists I have known are against the idea of altar calls. They are also against the idea of the sinner's prayer. I'm against the latter also, but not the former. If I was ever in a position to give an altar call (which is not the case most, if not all the time) I would do so, and ask the participants to pray in their own words and commit their lives to Christ. I'd then advise them to be baptized immediately. That's just me though. But Calvinists believe that God must regenerate the sinner first, so an altar call or a sinners prayer is fruitless if they have not yet been regenerated. Once they have been regenerated, prayer will be their natural desire.

If I was a Calvinist, I think I would pray differently, or perhaps sometimes not pray at all. Perhaps I wouldn't pray "differently", but I would have no reason to believe that my prayer would change the will of God. With that kind of attitude, it would be strange to experience the effective and fervent prayer that the apostle James spoke of.

If I was a Calvinist, I probably wouldn't see much of a need to preach the gospel or share with unbelievers also. Perhaps I still would evangelize since it is a commandment of Christ, but I probably would be less motivated to do so since I wouldn't think my sharing had any productive result.

I have attended a few Calvinist churches, or at least attended churches where the pastors are Calvinists. Evangelism and prayer were strangely not emphasized as far as I remember. This, of course, wouldn't be the case for every Calvinist pastor or flock, but I'm sure reformed theology has that effect in some places.

[dwilkins]

I don't have much for either Calvinism or Arminiansim (per Olson). In my opinion, most of the categorical crisis is caused by non-Calvinists allowing themselves to be bullied into a label that is too fragmented to be coherent (hence, the Calvinist strategy). On a practical level, on a moment to moment level I've never met a Calvinist who acts like his theology would require. And, I've never met anyone unfamiliar with technical theology who would assume that God works the way that they assume. So, the lifestyles of most people (including Calvinists) naturally align with Open Theism, whether people would use that label or not. I would say that almost everyone acts as if Open Theism were true (PK being the weakest part of the paradigm) and most people's soteriology naturally drifts towards semi-Pelagian "Arminianism" (though not per the definition Olson would endorse). Is this because they are lazy or because it's common sense (or hinted to them by the Holy Spirit?)?

As a practical matter, I've never seen a Calvinist (no matter how strong) act on a regular basis as if he believed his own system. If they did, they'd celebrate everyone who disagreed with them (especially the heretic Christians) because God had made that person do so since before the world was created.

Doug

[Homer]

Rich wrote:

Most Calvinists I have known are against the idea of altar calls. They are also against the idea of the sinner's prayer. I'm against the latter also, but not the former. If I was ever in a position to give an altar call (which is not the case most, if not all the time) I would do so, and ask the participants to pray in their own words and commit their lives to Christ.

Calvinists have historically been known for their call to come to the "mourner's bench" and wait in prayer for an experience that will assure them they have been regenerated. As for the "sinner's prayer" there is no case in any conversion narrative in the NT where a person is told to pray. They were told to repent and be baptized.

[Paidion]

My oldest brother was a Calvinistic Baptist preacher for most of his life.
Once I asked him, "If every individual is predestined to either heaven or hell, then why do you preach?
His answer: "I was predestined to preach!"

[Singalphile]

A few similar, older threads that I had not noticed:
Does it Really Make a Difference?
Why is the debate important?

I don't really have any more to say. There is probably a bit of caricature involved in descriptions of the effects of being on the other side. "Individual results may vary", evidently.

I like djeaton's post (#11) in that second link above in which he compares the debate to chewing gum: "There is some flavor and sweeteners to get out of it for a little while, but eventually there is nothing worthwhile in it."

[jriccitelli]

That’s a great observation in djeaton's post.
I agree with all above. I ‘personally’ am annoyed by Calvinism. With such an emphasis and principle of choice in the bible, the Calvinist comes along and throws a weird doctrine like theirs in the mix and ‘complicates’ many a discussion, that otherwise would be simple to understand – we have freewill.
In the same way; we have a good friend who spent some time with the Jehovah’s Witnesses recently and now our friendship and discussions have become really 'complicated' because of the JW teachings.

I think it is hard to determine how theology effects someone’s life in general, or how someone lives out their theology, simply because humans are each ‘so’ different. Two people believe the same thing, yet each can live in entirely opposite ways. All Judeo/Christian ideals ‘should’ result in a forgiving, graceful personification, but I see people of all denominations living out their beliefs in ways that may never define what doctrine persuaded them. I just don’t want anyone to delete any of Gods Words simply to justify a certain doctrine, in order to make it fit. That’s what false doctrines need to do, they have to dismiss and override verse after verse in order to defend something false. Calvinism being a good example.

Ultimately a persons theology will affect their lives individually, but the effects may vary immensely from person to person because there are so many combinations of personal theologies, feelings and attitudes that each affect our own brain and wiring (i.e. A workaholic may be inspired to work less, a lazy person may work harder)

Any misapplication of a text may affect a persons truth about God. And since we are 'called' to know and understand God, we should feel motivated yet free to pursue His truth the best we can, with fear sincerity and love, no matter what verse or doctrine. Since it is the Word that grows and sustains us (unless, of course, you're not one of the 'elect')