Calvinist & Arminian Thought Un-Biblical?

[_Rick_C]

I copied and pasted this from a post I made on another thread. I couldn't fit what Steve Gregg calls "Non-Calvinism" in the thread title. Anyway, here:

I haven't as of yet heard anyone challenge the Calvinists (and there are many varieties of them!), the Arminians, and any remaining "Non-Calvinists" to debate about all of these systems' basic presuppositions.

Thus far, I am about the only person I know, though I do know a few, who believe there is no evidence that the biblical authors thought like people in the 16th century. Bible authors were first century and earlier Jews, or at least held to a Jewish Worldview (as with Luke, e.g.). Their worldview wasn't philosophical. Calvinism, Arminianism, and "Non-Calvinism" are post-biblical, and western, philosophical systems that the Bible authors didn't embrace. If you take "God" out of these (current) debates, what you find is Determinism V. Indeterminism. No Bible author thought in these categories. I can't find a trace of evidence for it.

However, in the Post-Apostolic Church, when Gentiles became predominant -- and therefore -- "Gentile thought" (philosophical as opposed to Jewish-theological) became dominant; ever since then (even earlier than Augustine who imposed Neo-Platonic thought onto the Bible); well, these later, non-Jewish, debates continue on in the categories that Bible authors didn't embrace! (imsnho) lol

I'd like to see somone debate the Calvinists, Arminians, and "Non-Calvinists" on this. Perhaps I just did!?!? (Btw, I've considered writing a longer article on this and posting it in the Essays section).

As long as the Church continues to think in western categories that don't fit the Bible authors ... these debates will never end! I've been able to sift through the categories, and it took a long time, and am relativelty satisfied that I've gone through the 16th century and all the way back to the first; sifting out foreign elements in my beliefs and theology. Takes nothing short of ol' fashioned hard work! (a work in progress) ....

P.S. I just did some minor editing on this post & will reply to y'all soon

[Guest]

I'd like to understand you point better. Could you explain what you mean?

Personally, I don't consider myself an "Arminian". It's simply a label (usually applied by Calvinist) to denote someone who is not a Calvinist and believes you make a choice in the savlation process. So why would you assume that someone who isn't a Calvinist is therefore following the current western Gentile thinking? That seems like a broad brush. So again, could you be more specific? It seems as if the early Church fathers were not thinking as Calvinist do today, but rather that people have the ability to make free choices. One of these choices it to repent and believe the Gospel. It's this subject that the debate is over. Are you saying there is a third option? It seems that one critical distinctive of the debate is: Does faith precede regenration or does it come after it?

[Guest]

I discovered that I'm an open theist. I realized that I have held that position concerning the forknowledge of God decades before I ever heard of open theism.

Recently, I defined "Arminianism" as "Inconsistent Calvinism" for the reason that they seem to believe that statements about future choices of free will agents, have present truth value. Yet they also believe in free will.

[Guest]

I discovered that I'm an open theist. I realized that I have held that position concerning the forknowledge of God decades before I ever heard of open theism.

Recently, I defined "Arminianism" as "Inconsistent Calvinism" for the reason that they seem to believe that statements about future choices of free will agents, have present truth value. Yet they also believe in free will.

Hi Paidion,

Does it in any way bother you to say and teach that God is limited in his knowledge of anything, whether future events or anything?

[_Rick_C]

Thanks for your replies, folks!

I don't have time to reply right now but would like to know if it would be okay with you if I did something like Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho"? In other words, I could pretend I'm Paul (and perhaps other Bible guys) and reply in that way. I've done this before on other topics. It was fun and I managed to get my points agross (without being too overly irreverent).

I'll still answer as "me" (at least at first) but might use this method for a post or so.

Be back tomorrow (later today in Ohio)

[_Rick_C]

Too much coffee, insomnia, so:

I'd like to understand your point better. Could you explain what you mean?

Personally, I don't consider myself an "Arminian". It's simply a label (usually applied by Calvinist) to denote someone who is not a Calvinist and believes you make a choice in the savlation process.

I'm more than happy to explain stuff, thanks!

I understand what you are saying. Steve Gregg mentioned that R.C. Sproul, the staunch 5 Point Calvinist, considers 4 Point Calvinists to be "Arminians." These kinds of things aren't especially what I have in mind here in the thread, though they are important.

How would you assume that someone who isn't a Calvinist is therefore following the current western Gentile thinking? That seems like a broad brush. So again, could you be more specific?

I assume and/or propose that it is possible to really DO the historical-grammatical method of hermeneutics -- as opposed to how people "say" they are doing it when they obviously aren't! Iow, I believe it is a doable task that we can understand what the Bible authors wrote without reference to Post-Apostolic thinkers and that we can do this without operating from within their concurrent systems! To me, this is the only real historical-grammatical method, at least in my (admittedly, quite literal) interpretation of it.

Some small number of Calvinists acknowledge and share, along with some of the Early Church Fathers, the belief that the philosphers were actually inspired (as in, they spoke truth). No Calvinist that I know of would say they place philosophy along-side the Bible, on the same footing (though it certainly appears to be done in practise). Some Church Fathers held the philosophers in such high regard that they saw them as "inspired" almost to a level of Scripture!

I've heard one sermon (online) by a Calvinist who claims Augustine and the philosophy Augustine's thought was based on -- Neo-Platonism, a revival and amendment of earlier Platonic thought (Plato's) -- was, essentially, sent by God!

I'm not singling-out Calvinists. To the contrary, I'm proposing that the Bible writers were not only not Platonists, nor Neo-Platonists, as it as a movement hadn't even happened yet ... I'm simply saying they were Jews or otherwise, held a non-philosophical Jewish Worldview (Luke being a non-Jew, yet holding to a Jewish Worldview).

Calvinism and its predecessor, Augustinianism, are based in philosophy and, therefore, are not based in -- the only important -- wordview which was Jewish: the people who wrote the Bible! And since Arminianism/non-Calvinism are also post-apostolic developments that operate in philosophical categories -- which are basically foreign to biblical (meaning the Bible's) Jewish thought -- why do we continue to think like Plato, Plotinus (founder of Neo-Platonism) or any of these schools of thought coming after them?

Perhaps it is inescapable to a full degree (I think so). But to really understand the Bible I see no other way of doing it other than entering the minds and the world of the biblcal writers themselves and see things how they did!

Neither Augustine, Calvin, Arminius, Wesley, R.C Sproul, Clark Pinnock, nor anyone else associated with the "Calvinists V. Arminians" debate had even been born in the first century! Why, then, do they have such an importance if we are really serious about the historical-grammatical method?

It seems as if the early Church fathers were not thinking as Calvinist do today, but rather that people have the ability to make free choices.

Augustine did think like Calvinists today (though some cannot explain away some things he, and later, Calvin, said; neglecting what they said is fairly common). Many Calvinists regard Augustine as their "founder" though they also think Paul was, somehow, a Neo-Platonic philospher too: Nope! Paul was a first century Jew who thought like how they did!

You are right in that, before Augustine, a majority of Early Fathers taught "free will" (and please remember this is a Gentile category in philosophy)!!! Also, it should be noted that there are Calvinists and also Arminians who "quote" early (pre-Augustinian) Church Fathers to support thier views. Once more, we are into hermeneutics here -- when anyone quotes anyone the full context has to be taken into account; no prooftexting allowed!!! And as I said before; people "say" they believe in and are doing histroical-grammatical hermeneutics ... but don't we Protestants reject Early Fathers as authoritative? It has to be historical-grammatical or the Catholic belief in Ongoing Revelation (tradition as authoritative). Of course, quoting from the Fathers doesn't necessarily mean one accepts their authotrity as infallible. I just find it odd that Premillennialists of a more fundamentalist persuation cite some Fathers as proof the Bible is Premillennial ... and I'm getting off-topic.

One of these choices it to repent and believe the Gospel. It's this subject that the debate is over. Are you saying there is a third option? It seems that one critical distinctive of the debate is: Does faith precede regenration or does it come after it?

First: Yes, there IS a Third Option!
Seeing things how the people who wrote the Bible did!

If faith precedes regeneration or not -- or -- What is the extent of "choice" we have in obtaining our salvation or what: My Main Point is:
No first century Jew ever asked these things! (though some, who were too influenced by pagan thought, such as the "objector" in Romans 9 (if he was Jewish) may have).
While the Jews/Jewish-Christians asked questions and also provided the answers to those very same questions (Bible); I can't read Gentilic post-apostolic stuff into the Bible by asking it things that aren't there to be answered. To me it's a matter of coming up with a correct view toward the Bible which is the view and Worlview of its authors: Jewish -- in exact historical context. In this way I can avoid asking the wrong questions as well, such as: "Did God choose to elect people before or after The Fall?" Not a word in the Bible "reasons" like this, imo .... Yet folks like to prooftext on this, that, and the other when the Bible doesn't necessarily even address what is being asked! I'm glad not to be locked into any system and do all I can to keep out of them! (ex-dispensationalist, e.g.). Enuf from me.

[_Rick_C]

I discovered that I'm an open theist. I realized that I have held that position concerning the forknowledge of God decades before I ever heard of open theism.

Not knowing what a theology is named; I've had that with:
"Partial Preterist"
Was one before I knew it even existed as a theology or had a name ....

Open Theism, in terms of how I've been discussing things historically, is an extention -- and possibly, if not probably, a natural extention -- from Calvinism, imo. Iow, while it's not Calvinism-proper; it stems from the same philosophical categories and ways of thinking that Calvinism grew out of and embraced. In this sense, I see Open Theism as a "heretical branch of Calvinism, departing from Calvinistic orthodoxy," so to speak. Or, to borrow a line from Hank Hanegraaff, I see "Calvinists V. Open Theists" as "An In-House Debate!" And them's fightin words! lol

While I'm not at liberty to "be" an Open Theist (or Calvinist or Arminian); I have been studying it and feel there are some aspects of it that could fit the first century Jewish Worldview. Yet, once again, the Jews didn't have, nor they do they now have, a systematic theology (leave alone several thousands of varieties, including theologies that have evolved like Open Theism or any others this thread is about). God, to the Jews was "relational" as opposed to (Gentile) "philosophical." Jewish and/or that primitive, historical-grammatical, NT itself Jewish-Christian theology could be accurately described as: A Theology of Relationship.

Steve mentions this in one of his lectures; how the Jews related to God ... well, that's what they did! Their theology, then, reflects God as a Someone (I'm reluctant to say "Person", lol). He is a real Somebody Who we relate to personally (how we do with people) and quite unlike the gods of the philosphers; God is not some kind of impersonal "First Cause" or "Prime Mover" (Do you hear Calvinistic "Decrees" yet? I do).

Recently, I defined "Arminianism" as "Inconsistent Calvinism" for the reason that they seem to believe that statements about future choices of free will agents, have present truth value. Yet they also believe in free will.

I might see what you're saying. I do know the one reason I had to stop calling myself "Arminian" was its ideas about foreknowledge: The idea that God "foreknew who would respond to His beckoning" and, upon that basis, the elect get elected; I can't find it in the Worldview of Bible authors (in the Bible, same thing), lol

Some Scriptures are taken as proofs of this "election by foreknowledge" by Arminians but the texts themselves don't literally say this is how things happened. This conclusion is arrived at through deductive reasoning (do you see "philosophy?" I do). The line of thought goes something like:
1. Since God doesn't predestine only some to salvation (election) and:
2. Nor does He predestine some to be damned in Hell and:
3. Since, in His foreknowledge, He knew who would be saved:
4. Therefore, election is based on God's foreknowledge.
I'm sure you're aware of the problems in this reasoning/conclusion. I never could resolve these problems. The only reason I accepted Arminian foreknowledge -- by default, mind you, lol -- was that I wasnt a Calvinist! But since Calvinists and Arminians are locked -- together -- inside a "philosphical box" this is the best thing Arminians can come up with....

"Calvinism" as it has come to be known is something like the Counter-Reformation, imo. It was only after the "Arminians "(who were at that time known as the "Remonstrants") "remonstrated" (protested) that their opponents, who happened to agree more with what Calvin had taught; it wasn't till after Calvin's loyalists reacted to the Remonstrants that they became known as "Calvinists."

So who started it? I BLAME PLATO!!!!
(to be on the safe side......for now, anyway)

[_Rick_C]

Rick_C's Dialogue with Some Bible Guys

Rick: Welcome to all of you. I appreciate your coming!

Paul: If I may be so bold to speak first...

Peter: Go ahead. Go ahead! Go ahead already! (grins) (room laughter)

Paul: (still laughing) Greetings! and "Grace on ya!" to say it how some you younger folks might say it in these days. Yet I know one of you may say, "Paul believed in Necromancy." May it never be! God forbid! We are all here for discussion purposes only. So, on behalf of: myself, Peter, James, the brother of our Lord, and John, one of the "Sons of Thunder" -- these "pillars guys" -- it is nice to be with you. By the way, the way you shake hands is very interesting.

Rick: Thank You! James, would you have any opening comments?

James: As Paul said, I am glad to be among you! I seek no place of prominence, this is your interview. I'm here mainly to keep an eye on Peter! (more laughter, Peter only congenially grins, James now sez to Peter) Is it not a wise thing to laugh in the seasons of joy? (Peter eagerly nods, like how a three year old does it)

John: My dear Rick, may we proceed together in love? What are your concerns, my son?

Rick: Thank you, John, um, sir: Sir John!
(Rick braces self for possible bolt of lightning, not getting zapped, he continues)
Uh...I don't know where to begin, this is awesome! Okay, due to time constraints and though you all have only theoretically come down from heaven; Let me begin with Peter. What do you you think about the teachers, John Calvin and Jacobius Arminius?

Peter: Who? I've never heard of them.

Rick: You know, the 16th century theologians of Europe.

Peter: (wrings hands, appears frustrated) I never met them.

Rick: But surely you have heard about them, haven't you?

Peter: (angry face) I tell you for the THIRD TIME; I do not know these men!

Rick: Oh, I see. Sorry if I upset you ... Um, Paul, what, if anything, do you know of these men?

Paul: I am familiar with them though, of course, I never knew them in the flesh -- and none of us teaches or taught that people can actually talk with us like this -- I have to say! But, yes, I do know a few things about these men and their disciples.

Rick: Are they heretical?

Paul: I didn't bring my parchment notebook but I would say that Christ is not divided! Did John Calvin baptize any of your contemporaries? Did Jake Arminius baptize any of them? No. Who was baptized in the name of Clark Pinnock? None; no, not one.

Rick: But what of their doctrines?

Paul: Sects or sectarianism isn't anything new. Before I came to faith there were conflicts in the Holy City among the Greek and Hebrew believers. Years later, we had other differences over circumcision that Peter and James can attest to, being spokepersons at our Conference.

But to answer you; it would be wrong-headed to think that I, just because I used pagan words, quoted pagan poets, and utilized pagan ideas, "motifs" as you call them, to convey my message in ways that would be familiar to my readers or listeners; it would be empty-headed to think that I, somehow, actually embraced a pagan worldview! Far be it from me!

John: Can a man enter the second time into his mother's womb and come out again as a pagan? My son, no he cannot.

James: We spoke in words of wisdom that could be understood by those who seek the wisdom that comes from above. The one who says we were philosophers is not wise! The wisdom of this world comes from below, is earthly, carnal, of the devil.

Paul: We all, including you and your believing readers, Rick, are the True Israel of God! He is neither an Unknown God to us, nor is He a "Form" nor a "Prime Mover" as the pagans say.

Peter: I saw him on the Holy Mount in His glory!!!

Rick: Amen and God bless you for that, Peter! But you wrote about our being born again. Tell me, does regeneration precede faith? Or do we have faith first, and then, are born again?


Peter: (long pause) James, what is this fellow talking about???

James: I take second seat to Paul.

Paul: Peter, these things, the Gentiles concern themselves with. They pretend that they can know the thoughts of our God and Father. They wrongly divide our words as you mentioned they did mine in one of your letters. But even if I were to say to them if regeneration preceded -- or didn't precede -- faith; they would continue to fight among themselves. I know, that I, as a Jew, would have no reason to consider such foolish things. "For who can know the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" And again, where He says, "My thoughts are not your thoughts." These rather unfortunate Gentile believers of Rick's day are caught up in so much philosophical fancy. Then they try to pin this pagan philosophical nonsense onto us! They pretend to read our minds and go further on to fantasize they can read God's very Own mind! Had I intended to say anything about these so-called "decrees" that came up years after we died -- as if I, the chief of sinners -- could probe into all mysteries hidden in the mind of God, as they imagine a man could do -- and live to tell about it -- I most certainly would have done and said so!!!

Let me tell you what you will say to me, (I speak as a foolish theologian)!
Does regeneration precede faith or is it the other way around?
-- My answer to you is: I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision.

Does our God and Father predestine to elect some to be saved and passes over or predestines the others go to hell?
-- I ask you, who want to know so much; How can they hear if no one is sent???

But what choice do I have? How much can I decide? is what you so desire to know.
-- Do you believe in your heart that God raised His Son, Jesus, from the dead? and that he died for our sins, according to the Scriptures?
-- You answer me, then I will answer you!!!

When did He "decree" these things you are so curious about? Was it after Adam fell or before?
-- The Lord God "decreed" this: No one else can BE Him and, therefore, no one can know His very own thoughts! Have you seen the bust of Plato? Tell me: In what ways do you think I -- even remotely -- resemble him? The Almighty does what He does when He does them and according to His own good and wise counsel. What?---Do you think I am a god? Was I there when He chose to do what He willed to do before the foundation of the world? Were you??? I may not be a trained motivational speaker but I DO have knowledge! The wisdom of this world is foolishness to Him! I AM A JEW!!! And as our Lord Himself said, "Salvation if of the Jews." Can philosophy save you? Do the philosophers of this age know Him who appeared to Moses in the bush? Were they there when He parted the Sea? and led them from bondage? NOT! I will tell you again, I AM A JEW!!! Why is it, then, that you take me to be some goofy Gentile philosophical pagan moron who---Rick: Welllll... Okayyyyy, alrighty then! uhhhm, thank you very much, Paul and Panel! Shall we finish brunch now?

Peter: Yeah, I'm HUNGRY!

Paul: Peter! Then I tell you to your face: Pass the ham salad, already! Aish!!!

(room filled with serious GUFFAWS, slowly quieting with each mouthful)

(to be continued)....

[Guest]

At least some honest Non Calvinist has come out and had the courage to call themself an Open Theist, which IS consistent Arminianism.

Of course, that means that such a person is a heretic, which of course means that they are worshipping another god.

Open Theism is heresy, and I hope that other Non Calvinists will come to reject their Non Calvinism (free will theology), rather than embrace Open Theism.

Time will tell.
Mark

Joh 6:65 And Jesus said, Because of this I said to you that no one can come to Me unless it was given to him from My Father.

[Guest]

Hi Tartanarmy,

What is your definition of "Open Theism"?