I was a 5-point Calvinist for over 10 years, until a few months ago.
What caused this? Why do you think you were wrong to accept 5-point Calvinism as Biblical? How would you describe your current beliefs?
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
A number of reasons played a part in my decision to reject Calvinism. First, I became despondent with the attitude and behaviour of certain Christians within the Reformed circle for reasons I cannot divulge here. Suffice it to say that I felt one could so easily wrap themselves up in the "truths" of the doctrines of grace, and yet fail to demonstrate the love and mercy of Jesus Christ in their lives.
Of course, this did not "cause" me to reject Calvinism. There can be a lack of Christ-likeness in both camps (i.e. in Calvinist and Arminian Christians). But it did lead me to (1) examine my own life, and (2) re-examine Calvinian theology which I had cherished for so long.
After studying the arguments from both sides, I began to doubt my belief in the Calvinian view of God's divine decree, in which God determines human decisions, and even human sinfulness. After that I saw huge flaws in the doctrine of unconditional election, especially as it related to the justice and mercy of God and the responsibility and accountability of moral agents.
> "Why do you think you were wrong to accept 5-point Calvinism as Biblical?"
I don't think I was "wrong" to accept Calvinism. Immediately after the Lord saved me, I found myself in a Reformed Baptist church where I was told that Arminianism taught a "different gospel". I read books by Boettner and Berkhof, incl. Calvin's Institutes, etc. So I think I was rather ignorant of what Arminians really believe. And I do believe that most Calvinists have misrepresented what Classical Arminians believe. This is clear from Pilgrim's response to me in the essentials thread, where he said, "the theology of Arminianism ... denies the doctrines of Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus". This is simply not true. And I can quote sources from Arminians, including Jacob Arminius, to prove it.
Also, I wouldn't say that Calvinism is "unbiblical". Again, to do so would be to place my Reformed brethren outside of the Body of Christ. Rather, I would say that I agree with the Arminian interpretation of predestination than the Calvinist's. I may believe that Calvinists are sincerely wrong in what they believe, but I would never say that they are believing in "heresy" or a "different gospel".
With what you wrote it appears your decision is based on feelings (i.e. (1) I became despondent with the attitude and behavior of certain Christians, (2) Suffice it to say that I felt), and without Scriptural support (you supplied none in your post).
Could you please give Scriptural support to your statements and explain more to the point what you mean by:
(1) “I began to doubt my belief in the Calvin view of God's divine decree, in which God determines human decisions, and even human sinfulness,”
(2) “After that I saw huge flaws in the doctrine of unconditional election, especially as it related to the justice and mercy of God and the responsibility and accountability of moral agents,”
(3) “And I do believe that most Calvinists have misrepresented what Classical Arminians believe. This is clear from Pilgrim's response to me in the essentials thread, where he said, "the theology of Arminianism ... denies the doctrines of Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus". This is simply not true. And I can quote sources from Arminians, including Jacob Arminius, to prove it.”
(4) “Rather, I would say that I agree with the Arminian interpretation of predestination than the Calvinist's.
There is no such thing, <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nope.gif" alt="" /> but all Arminians do need reforming. But, if you think you can prove that you are, please do so from Scripture <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />
MJM said, now he believes in: Reformed Arminianism
(Joe Complains) There is no such thing, but all Arminians do need reforming.
(Fred) With all due respect Joe, there is such a thing as "Reformed Arminianism." The word "Reformed" is not exclusive to Calvinistic thought and no Calvinist, at least in my opinion, should think he has a corner of exclusivity with its usage. Dr. Robert Picirilli of the Free Will Baptist College in Nashville asserts his position as a Reformed Arminian and wrote a book on the subject defending it. There is a gracious review of it written by Roger Nicole found here at the Founders website:
The FWB consider themselves "Reformed" in the sense that they affirm Jacob Arminius's initial theology that he articulated before his death. Reformed Arminians embrace the substitutionary view of the atonement as opposed to later Arminian development (with in the first generation of Arminianism) of the governmental view of the atonement developed by the lawyer Grotius. Reformed Arminianism also embraces the five solas of the Reformation. So as much as we Calvinist may crinkle our noses at the thought of Arminians holding to Reformed thought, I believe it is being historically dishonest to blanketedly claim there is "no such thing."
However, on the other hand, the fact that historical Reformed Arminianism had to "adjust" its theology, almost immediately after Arminius's followers published their Remonstrants, demonstrates the bald inconsistency of the entire system. Honest, Bible believing Arminians cannot affirm the 5 solas for too long before their system implodes upon itself, because it cannot withstand any meaningful exegetical criticism. I think some of the more thoughtful critics of Reformed Arminianism in recent years has been from the Open Theism camp. They are honest enough to recognize the problems inherent with Arminianism.
Also, Arminius himself was heavily influenced by Molina and middle knowledge, even though he picked and chose those parts of molinism that he favored for his interest. Reformed Arminians tend to gloss over this fact and pretend there is nothing to that, though it reveals that Arminius gained a lot of his thinking from Roman Catholicism rather than the theology of the Reformation.
Anyhow, I will be curious to read how our new friend will defend his theology. I am always eager to learn from dissenters.
Fred
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
With all due respect Fred my point (which I am sure you understood) is that one can not be a full Calvinist and an Arminian at the same time. The two systems conflict. Contrary to what MJM said, "they are different gospels." This is what MJM was referring to (never mentioning any idea of Nichole's article) and was what I was commenting on. MJM said, "I may believe that Calvinists are sincerely wrong in what they believe," which reveals he is Arminian (or, ?), not Calvinist, Reformed, et. al. We do not wish to add even more confusion to an already confused state of the soul--this is not a good apologetic.
MJM said: "After that I saw huge flaws in the doctrine of unconditional election, especially as it related to the justice and mercy of God and the responsibility and accountability of moral agents."
Unfortunately, what Arminian doctrine, in effect, says is that there are standards outside of God - that He must live by. So for example, they would say that God would not be merciful if He foreordained some to election and some to reprobation. Why? Based on what standard is that not merciful? Upon what standard is it unjust?
From what I gather from MJM and Fred, MJM might have been using the term, "Reformed" in the sense that he was referring to Arminianism which flowed from the Protestant Reformation in that it too shared in the breaking away from the RCC. In other words, he might be be using the word "Reformed" in a strict historical sense and not a theological one. To say the least, to do so, IF that is the case and perhaps MJM will be kind enough to explain what he REALLY intends to convey by the use of the word, "Reformed", it does lend itself to confusion.
Be that as it may, even the purest form of Arminianism, i.e., that espoused by Jacob Arminius and expressed in the Remonstrance, is still heretical and contrary to biblical teaching as it is inherently self-contradictory. For example, the affirmation of a substitutionary atonement cannot be consistently upheld by also affirming a universal atonement. And again, Sola Gratia cannot be held when one also affirms Free-will.
I am sure we ALL would like to see MJM defend his position. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
"After studying the arguments from both sides, I began to doubt my belief in the Calvinian view of God's divine decree"
I am genuinely curious what materials did you study on both sides?? What did you read on the Arminian side that made you change your mind?? Now I am pretty familiar with this label because I go to an "Arminian" church right now! Have you read some of the stuff I have??
Now ironically I am kind of in the opposite position of you. I have been in "Arminian" churches all of my Christian life and now just in the last few months (and a big part because of this web site) I have discovered that alas there is a "label" and a name to the theology that I have always kind of always "known" in my heart - Reformed theology. And indeed I have to also agree (from what I've read so far) that Arminianism does counter greatly with the 5 Solas and I can attest that from my experience in my current church. My eyes have been so opened to these 2 views!!
I hope you will dialouge here. This is a discussion board and it takes time to talk and learn here.
Perhaps he was using the term Reformed as you and Fred are saying? If so, he was not consistent:
Quote
MJM said,
A number of reasons played a part in my decision to reject Calvinism…. I became despondent with the attitude and behaviour of certain Christians within the Reformed …. this did not "cause" me to reject Calvinism. There can be a lack of Christ-likeness in both camps (i.e. in Calvinist and Arminian Christians). But it did lead me to re-examine Calvinian theology… I began to doubt my belief in the Calvinian …
Clearly, taking MJM’s words in their context he’s using the terms Reformed and Calvinist, Calvinism, and Calvinian synonymously above. Thus, I do not think his foregoing statements are using the word Reformed in a strict historical sense…., but in a theological one. Of course with statements like, “I wouldn't say that Calvinism is unbiblical" contrasted to "Calvinists are sincerely wrong in what they believe,” it is already confusing at best! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />
Reformed Arminianism also embraces the five solas of the Reformation.
My point exactly. I use the word "Reformed" alongside Arminianism in that sense of the word (i.e. 5 sola's).
The question REMAINS is how you embrace and define the 5 solas. Please explain each "sola" in detail using Scripture to defend each of your positions? Please give definitions for "terms" as well. Congratulations on your achievements of earning a L.Th & B.Th. BTW.
I am genuinely curious what materials did you study on both sides??
On the Calvinian side I used:
(1) "Institutes of the Christian Religion" (Calvin) (2) "Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" (Boettner) (3) "Systematic Theology" (Berkhof) (4) "Chosen by God" (Sproul) (5) "Born Slaves" (Luther) (6) "Freedom of the Will" (Edwards) (7) "No Other God" (Frame)
On the Arminian side, I used:
(1) "Introduction to Christian Theology" (Wiley) (2) "Grace, Faith, Free Will" (Picirilli) (3) "The Grace of God and the Will of Man" (Pinnock, et al.) * Good collection of Arminian essays, but there are a couple of Open Theist essays. (4) "Grace Unlimited" (Pinnock, et al.) *Pinnock was still an Arminian here, before he embraced Open Theism, which I believe is aberrant. (5) "Why I am not a Calvinist" (Walls) (6) "Election & Predestination" (Fisk)
Also used "four views" books such as "Predestination & Free Will" (Basinger), and "Debating Calvinism" (White & Hunt).
Interesting list, but why do you believe Arminianism has a better interpretation of Scripture and a better grasp on the whole of Scripture?
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
With what you wrote it appears your decision is based on feelings (i.e. (1) I became despondent with the attitude and behavior of certain Christians, (2) Suffice it to say that I felt), and without Scriptural support (you supplied none in your post).
My decision to reject Calvinism was not based on feelings. As I said in my previous post, this did not "cause" me to reject Calvinism. However, it did cause me to re-examine Calvinian theology.
Quote
Could you please give Scriptural support to your statements and explain more to the point what you mean by: (1) “I began to doubt my belief in the Calvin view of God's divine decree, in which God determines human decisions, and even human sinfulness,”
Allow me to deal with one point at a time:
For me, the weakest link in Calvinism was their view of God's exhaustive divine sovereignty in that God, by his divine decree, had determined and foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. Reformed theologian, John Frame, says, "God brings about our free decisions. He does not foreordain merely what happens to us, but also what we choose to do" (No Other God, 2001, p. 65). Notice that Frame says, "free decisions". Here he has stated an oxymoron. How can our decisions be free if God determines what decisions we should make?
Perhaps James Sire's description of Deism best describes Calvinism's deterministic worldview:
[In Deism] the universe is closed to human reordering because it is locked up in a clocklike fashion... Fenelon put his finger on a major problem within deism: human beings have lost their ability to act significantly. We can only be puppets. If an individual has personality, it must then be a type which does not include the element of self-determination. (The Universe Next Door, 1997, p. 45)
According to Reformed theology, God not only predetermined our decisions, but also our sinful actions! Again, Frame says, "However we address the problem of evil, our response must be in accord with the great number of Scripture passages that affirm God's foreordination of everything, even including sin" (No Other God, 2001, p. 68). Of course, this would make God the author of sin, so Calvinists such as Paul Helm, Loraine Boettner, and RC Sproul have attempted to respond along the lines that God ordains evil only in the sense of "willingly permitting it" (Helm in Divine Foreknowledge, 2001, 158-9).
First of all, this contradicts the statements of other Reformed theologians who taught that God causes people to sin (e.g. see Martin Luther, Born Slaves, 1984, p. 67). And secondly, it contradicts the Calvinian assertion that God's eternal decree is unconditional and not based on his foreknowledge (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 1958, p. 105). In other words, if God permits sinful actions, he has to know beforehand that it will occur. But then God's foreordination or permission of sinful actions is based on his foreknowledge, it is dependent on human actions, and God’s decree is conditional.
When one reads the biblical narratives in the Old Testament, one does not have a picture of a closed system where human actions are the result of an all-determining, unconditional and forceful decree. Instead, God's plans and purposes are a reaction, or response, to man's free (in the true sense of the word) will and actions. For example, man freely rebelled and sinned against God. God reacted in judgment, but also in mercy. God foreknew that man would fall, and thus, in eternity past he purposed / determined to send his Son into the world in order to save the world (Jn. 3:16; Acts 2:23).
Because of sin, man often rebels against God, resisting and rejecting his will for their lives (Lk. 7:30; Acts 7:51). Their rebellious actions are outside of the will of God. Yet, God permits them to reject his purposes because they are free will beings.
On the other hand, Calvinists believe that nothing is outside of the will of God, even when people sin, for their sinful actions may oppose God's preceptive will (i.e. his desires, precepts, laws), but not his decretive will (foreordination of everything). This view of the will of God is incompatible with moral responsibility. Allow me to illustrate by way of a true story:
A few months ago, a young lady was kidnapped from her college and held to ransom. Leigh's father paid the kidnappers R50 000, but she was never returned. In the end, the kidnappers deliberately decided to take her life by firing 3 gunshots into her body. So Calvinists would have us believe that this monstrous act was against God's preceptive will, but not his decretive will. God did not desire that Leigh should be murdered, but according to his eternal purpose, he foreordained it. God did not desire or want the kidnappers to murder Leigh, but it was his purpose that they should decide to murder Leigh.
I would contend that God did not desire that Leigh should be murdered, neither was it his purpose that the kidnappers should murder Leigh. Yet, the omnipotent God permitted it. Why? Here is an extensive quote from C. S. Lewis who, I believe, best expressed the answer:
God created things which had free will… And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata – of creatures that worked like machines – would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight… And for that they must be free. Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently He thought it worth the risk. Perhaps we feel inclined to disagree with Him. But there is a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the source from which all your reasoning power comes… If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will – that is, for making a live world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings – then we may take it, it is worth paying. (Mere Christianity, 1997, pp. 39-40)
Welcome to our little place. Please enjoy your stay and thanks for replying in a gracious manner. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />
Could you show from scripture that man has free-will?
MGM
Quote
Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently He thought it worth the risk.
Risk? Risk what? Didn't God know the outcome already?
Quote
Let it not be thought that the Arminian by his doctrine escapes limited atonement. The truth is that he professes a despicable doctrine of limited atonement. He professes an atonement that is tragically limited in its efficacy and power, an atonement that does not secure the salvation of any. He indeed eliminates from the atonement that which makes it supremely precious to the Christian heart. In B. B. Warfield’s words, ‘the substance of the atonement is evaporated, that it may be given a universal reference’. What we mean is, that unless we resort to the position of universal restoration for all mankind--a position against which the witness of Scripture is decisive--an interpretation of the atonement in universal terms must nullify its properly substitutive and redemptive character. We must take our choice between a limited extent and a limited efficacy, or rather between a limited atonement and an atonement without efficacy. It either infallibly saves the elect or it actually saves none." (Murray, The Reformed Faith and Modern Substitutes, in The Presbyterian Guardian, 1935).
How do you make the atonement both universal AND vicarious?
MGM
Quote
God foreknew that man would fall, and thus, in eternity past he purposed / determined to send his Son into the world in order to save the world (Jn. 3:16; Acts 2:23).
If Gods purpose was to save the entire world, did He fail? Or are you supporting a merely possible salvation?
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
