Why is this debate important?

[Guest]

(Plus, a weird image is now in my head of meat that has been chewed on for centuries )

It is a pretty bad word picture. My point being that we can, in effect, spin our wheels about something that has been debated for centuries and won't be settled in our lifetime, or we can move on to something more spiritually and practically productive. Continuing to chew on something that we will never fully digest in this world is like 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.
D.

[Guest]

You've got my vote, Brother!

[Guest]

I’m struggling to find any practical application to this debate in my Christian life. How differently does a Calvinist relate to his wife from a non Calvinist? Raise his children, witness to a stranger, work with his co-workers or give advice to a dieing friend?

I cannot speak for anyone else. I can only tell you how holdling the Calvinist position affected me at age 16-25.

1. I considered it very important that I convince everyone I could that "predestination" and "eternal security" (actually "unconditional security") were true. I recall a Bible study I had at Teachers College with some Mennonite friends. One of them asked me, "Paidion, where do you get this stuff? Where do you find this in the Bible?"

My reply, "Why, it's on every page!"

2. I believed that being a practising sinner would in no way affect my eternal destiny, since I was saved by grace, by having been chosen before the foundation of the world. Thus I did not "hunger and thirst after righteousness."

3. I held a view of the "non-elect" that was not conducive to witnessing. I had a "them" and "us" mentality, a feeling, which in other contexts, would be called "racism".

That's all that comes to mind right now, but I am sure there were others.

[Guest]

I believe there is much harm that can result from Calvinism. Paidion has mentioned a few. I will add some more.

Imagine you are a Calvinist who believes children are born bearing the guilt of Adam's sin. A young couple has a baby they love dearly. At six months of age, their beloved child dies. As a Calvinist, how do you console the parents? What hope can you give them that their beloved child has gone on to a better place?

Another example. A young child is raped and murdered. The Calvinist can say it was foreordained by God to happen and that God will make some good come from it. The non-Calvinist can say that God allowed it to happen; that God has granted freedom to man, and that men do evil things, yet the child, being innocent, will be in heaven. The Calvinist can give no assurance of this.

The Calvinist must insist that all that happens, including evil, is preordained by God. The non-Calvinist can insist that God has granted man freedom, and free men do evil things. In a sense, God took a risk when He created man and granted him freedom. Freedom is a thing of great value to God. This should not surprise us; created in God's image, we too greatly value freedom. Many have died for it.

And again, we ought to be aware of the despair engendered by Calvinism. Many seeking God have turned away because they honestly could not come up with a "conversion experience" as they were led to expect, and even demanded to relate, before they could be accepted as Christians. (we still see remnants of this practice today by those influenced by Calvinism with "conversion experience" narratives expected, or demanded, at baptism.)

And let's not omit the despair of Calvinists who anguish over whether they are actually "elect" or not. How can they know for sure? Even Calvin himself asserted there would be those who thought the were elect Christians but were reprobate. Where is there peace in this?

Calvinism is not just a harmless matter of opinion.

[Guest]

I think the extreme forms of either calvinism or arminian have important and negative ramifications. Extreme calvinism can lead someone to think than holiness/sanctification are unimportant, which shows the world a very distorted view of God & His people. Extreme arminianism can lead someone to think they lose their salvation every day, which can make one extremely unstable and, once again, misrepresent Christianity.

I don't think of moderate arminianism & moderate calvinism as being very different 'in practice.' For example, let's say 2 such people are in conversation and they bring up an old friend who is a professing Christian, but has been living a very wicked and rebellious life. The arminian may say he has lost his salvation. The calvinist may say he was never saved in the first place. But both of them would say he needs to come back to Christ. So while their diagnosis of the problem may be different, their cure is the same.

[Guest]

...It's almost as if the point is to learn the "hidden truth" about God....

Calvinism, as represented by many Calvinists, has an essential gnostic flavor to it...("secret knowledge" available only to the initiated).

I've been trying to find exactly when the Calvinistic "Decrees of God" came into being (when it was invented). So far, I haven't been able to find who first used it. I have been able to pinpoint the origin of the doctrine of "synergism" beginning in the early 1600's....

I think in lots of ways we fall into a trap of trying to figure God out and understand His ways instead of learning His heart and following His ways.

God's decrees, as they are defined defined by Scripture, aren't confusing. Actually, they're really quite simple and easy to understand. Having never been a Calvinist, though I have tried to "see through Calvinistic lenses" (so to speak)...I've never fallen into this "trap" you speak about. Seeing God philosophically has never been an issue (or problem) for me. I've never seen reason to, for one thing.

One little thing...I'm not so sure that the fine points of soteriology are really the meat of the Word.

I would say that many of the fine points that come up in Calvinists V. Arminians aren't the meat of the Word at all...only so much philosophical mumbo jumbo (However, it seems like it might be around for a while)....

I think the extreme forms of either calvinism or arminian have important and negative ramifications. Extreme calvinism can lead someone to think than holiness/sanctification are unimportant, which shows the world a very distorted view of God & His people. Extreme arminianism can lead someone to think they lose their salvation every day, which can make one extremely unstable and, once again, misrepresent Christianity.

I grew up in an extremist Arminian church that fits your description. They were old-fashioned Pentecostal Wesleyans, with the "three works of grace". Very, very (very) "strict!"

I don't think of moderate arminianism & moderate calvinism as being very different 'in practice.'

I wonder if "moderate Arminians and Calvinists" are that...if they don't talk about it much, lol

For example, let's say 2 such people are in conversation and they bring up an old friend who is a professing Christian, but has been living a very wicked and rebellious life. The arminian may say he has lost his salvation. The calvinist may say he was never saved in the first place. But both of them would say he needs to come back to Christ. So while their diagnosis of the problem may be different, their cure is the same.

I had some Calvinists TELL me I wasn't saved till about 2.5 years ago. (This was when I was able to completely stop drinking alcohol). I was initially somewhat offended. However, since I knew they were Calvinists, I knew there wasn't going to be anything I could say to convince them otherwise...Thing is, I became a Christian before I got off alcohol (no matter what the Calvinists said). I didn't debate them about it.

Both may say "Come to Christ" (but the Calvinists wouldn't say "come back" as they believe you never came to begin with). Anyways....

Thanks,
Rick

[Guest]

Rick wrote:

I had some Calvinists TELL me I wasn't saved till about 2.5 years ago. (This was when I was able to completely stop drinking alcohol). I was initially somewhat offended. However, since I knew they were Calvinists, I knew there wasn't going to be anything I could say to convince them otherwise...Thing is, I became a Christian before I got off alcohol (no matter what the Calvinists said). I didn't debate them about it.

I met someone on a subway several years ago who had drifted in his walk with Christ. He had been taught the Calvinist position that he was never saved in the first place. But he was certain that he had been born again. The Calvinist teaching "threw him for a loop". When I met him he was feeling hopeless, very confused and despondent.

Rick, I'm glad you didn't meet these people 3 years ago! I'm also glad you're aware of various ways of understanding the scripture.

For some, the subject of Calvinism goes beyond a mere theological understanding. It's quite practical.

[Guest]

AnotherSteve wrote:

I met someone on a subway several years ago who had drifted in his walk with Christ. He had been taught the Calvinist position that he was never saved in the first place. But he was certain that he had been born again. The Calvinist teaching "threw him for a loop". When I met him he was feeling hopeless, very confused and despondent.

And here is a problem with Calvinism I overlooked. In a case where a person became a Christian and then fell away as I certainly did for many years, how could they ever, if Calvinist doctrine is correct, have any assurance of salvation, or hope, if they came to Christ again in the future. Nothing but despair.

I was baptized as a teenager, and my faith was not as strong as it is today. However, it was strong enough that one time I was sleeping and was awakened when a bright light was turned on. My immediate thought was that Jesus had come. In a case where a person comes to Christ in faith, repents, is baptized, and lives as a follower of Jesus, perhaps for years only to fall into a life of unbelief and sin, the Calvinist must insist they were never saved at all. Then what? How could they ever know a subsequent repentance and faith were any more real than the first faith they, at the time, thought was real? As long as they believed in the Calvinist doctrine, how could they have any hope at all?

Some harmless doctrine indeed!

[Guest]

Hello Homer,

You know what bro, as shocking as this may seem coming from me, I agree with you! Although, these are the extreme views we find in both camps. When I was in a Nazarene church, I read their manual of beliefs and the lifestyle requirements. I thought I was reading something from the Pharisees! While I was there, a group of brothers who were long time members "converted" to a form of "hyper calvinism" and really disrupted the body with their extreme views. The Pastor finally asked them to leave.
I also relate well with people who have "drifted" or are battleing a stubbborn sin in their lives. Thank God, He doesn't judge us in the same way we might judge others! We would all be in hell! Amen?

Peace in Him,
Bob

[Guest]

I just heard something on the radio that makes me want to weigh in on this one.

First of all I think it is worth noting that, in my experience, people on both sides of the debate tend to have God’s glory in mind, and both sides feel scripture is on their side. Based on this, I feel pretty safe saying that most people on both sides of the debate are disciples of Jesus (and thus “saved”), so the debate is relatively unimportant in that sense. However, the doctrines we hold inevitably have some impact on our worldview and the answers we can give the world, as illustrated by the following story.

I was listening to the radio yesterday, and there was a panel of gentlemen (all Calvinists as far as I could tell) answering questions. The question at hand was how a good God could allow evil in the world. The speaker said something like (not a perfect quote), “Evil actions are sin for the person doing them, but, since God ordains all things and is good, we know that the evil actions themselves are good in God’s eyes.” So it seems that the evil around us is actually good from God’s perspective, but bad from man’s perspective. How this could be was said to be a bit of a mystery. Another guy piped up to remind us that it is God who defines “good”, and we need to be careful about imposing our own fallible definitions on Him. I shared this with my wife, and she said, “That’s not a very satisfying answer.” But that is where you have to go if “God is sovereign” = “God ordains all things”.

My view of God’s sovereignty allows a more satisfying answer (to me anyway) to the question at hand. There is evil in the world because people don’t always do what God wants, and He has sovereignly determined that we have the freedom to do so (and will be held responsible for those actions). Of course, satisfying answers don’t determine truth. The scriptures do that (and that’s what all the debate is about), but I have found that the truth generally leads to satisfying answers, not “mysteries”. The problem with things like the “evil=good” hand waving above is that it runs many people (like the folks I work with) off. One of the radio guys made the comment that you have to look at all of this through the eyes of faith. I think by that he means we have to be willing to accept absurdities.

My point is, truth is important, even if our “salvation” is not at stake. We need to be ready to give answers for the hope we have. If those answers are in error and we run people off (and this occurs on both sides of the debate as noted in other posts), we have a problem that is worth trying to correct in my opinion.