Can We Eliminate the Divide Between Calvinism and Arminianism?

The whole thing I find funny is that they will argue over what the word IS means.

I mean really? Its true I once followed a calvinist and arminist argument they were having online and thats what they ended up doing.

Best not to get involved.

Hi, Everyone -

I proffer that the answer to the question I posed is "yes", and the reason I decided to join this Christian chat service is to get your reaction to my approach on this subject. Perhaps, some will respond to my approach with a convincing and compelling rebuttal to demonstrate the ways in which my approach is flawed.

In the world of physics there are two irreconcilable disciplines: "quantum mechanics" and "relativity". The rules found in quantum mechanics do not apply in relativity, and, likewise, the rules found in relativity do not apply to quantum mechanics. This divide has led scientists to attempt to define a theory that unifies these two disciplines . Despite being unsuccessful for decades, the effort to unite the two approaches continues today.

In light of Scripture, it would seem Christians would have within themselves a similar desire to unite those who adhere to either of these theological traditions. For example, Jesus prayed in John 17 the following:

I do not pray for these [Jesus' 11 disciples] alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

This text shows that our unity is not only Jesus' desire, but has two additional services: to be a testimony to non-believers that our Father did send Jesus and that our Father loves us just as He loved Jesus. Consequently, any inducement to separate ourselves from each other on the basis of man-made theological traditions (i.e., Calvinism, and Arminianism) are to be assiduously rejected.

From my experience, Christians who are expanding their understanding of Christendom are told that Christendom is split into two camps: Calvinist and Arminian; no other options are mentioned. Because of taking debate classes during my undergraduate training, I almost immediately thought to myself that the potential exists for the two-camp presentation of Christendom to be a false dilemma, and, based on my study of Scripture, it is that. I’d like to share with you below a paper I wrote in 2018 that employs an interpretive framework that demonstrates the two-camp narrative to be false thereby destroying the separation between these two camps. If you can demonstrate how the paper fails to achieve this objective, then I’d like you to tell me. Thanks!


My Perspective on Arminianism and Calvinism

Both Arminianism and Calvinism are wrong in their explanations of how the salvation process works. These theological traditions neither recognize nor address the overarching role Isaiah’s curse had in producing significant differences in the way Jews and Gentiles responded to the Gospel as overwhelmingly demonstrated in Scripture. Consequently, both of these traditions are defective, unreliable, inaccurate, and unbiblical.


A Simple Salvation Process for All

The salvation process is simple:

If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10:9-13).

Notice in Romans 11:5-10 how this simple process contains a prerequisite for the Jews - specifically, “election”. The election prerequisite is strictly for and to Jews; Scripture never describes Gentiles as having this prerequisite. This prerequisite is necessary because the Jews were handicapped by a curse that prevented them from believing the Gospel.


Isaiah’s Curse

The Jews were cursed through Isaiah, and this curse formed the basis for their needing to be elected by God unto salvation:

And He said, “Go, and tell this people:
‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’

“Make the heart of this people dull,
And their ears heavy,
And shut their eyes;
Lest they see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart,
And return and be healed” (Isaiah 6:9-10).

The above curse was quoted by Jesus when describing the Jewish condition to His disciples in Matthew 13:10-17. Consequently, the curse significantly impacted the way in which Jesus communicated to the Jews: in parables only. In addition, the same curse was quoted by Paul when contrasting the Jewish and Gentile responses to the Gospel in Acts 28:17-29. Consequently, the curse rendered all Jews as damned and bereft of salvation unless God chose to break the curse on those Jews He chose for salvation, per Romans 11:5-10. Even the prophets were blinded, according to Isaiah 29:10. Fortunately, the curse had an expiration date (Isaiah 6:11-13) and expired upon the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.


The Electoral Process that Breaks Isaiah’s Curse on the Jews

In order for Isaiah’s curse on the Jews to be broken so they could be saved, God chose (or, elected) which of the Jews to save:

I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not … at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace … What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded (Romans 11:1-7).

In the above passage we find that:

• all Jews were blinded from salvation,
• some Jews were elected unto salvation, and
• those who were elected comprised a remnant.

This “blinding and election” action was directed toward Jews and not the Gentiles:

• “Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded”.
• “Go and tell this people … Keep on seeing, but do not perceive … and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes ...”.

Election was an ongoing process throughout Jewish history as described in Romans 9:6-13. It was still in effect in Paul’s day as described in Romans 11:5 and chronicled by Lydia’s conversion in Acts 16:13-15. But since, as of today, the curse has expired, the electoral process for Jews has been abandoned (Isaiah 29:17-24).


EDIT

If Christ died for the sins of the whole world then everyone is saved regardless of their belief and there is no point in theology at all.

But the bible is obviously clear in the fact that only Believers are saved. So we have to come to the conclusion that the Lord Jesus died for the sins of the elect. The sins of the unbeliever still condemn them.


I know lots of people hate Calvinism because they get their feelings hurt.

But I haven't heard anyone say they hate Calvinism because they think everyone who was ever born and ever will be born is automatically saved by the death of Christ regardless of their beliefs or actions.

Looks official Marcelio

I don't know if there is an arminian on CC about but i will ask this about the points..

1) Deprivation..
When it says that people are incapable of being righteous on their own but that they can be transformed by Gods Grace.. Is it saying that people can be transformed from one state of being to the righteous state in this life.. Or are they saying that we shall be transformed upon the day of the resurrection?

2)Conditional Election.. ""God has chosen that all humanity be righteous by His grace"" does that mean God is going to save everyone and make them righteous by His grace? ( universalism ) Or is that statement just saying that God has chosen grace as the Way that people are to be made righteous? It can be read in different ways..

The end part of that definition i have no idea what it means?? Fulfilling election ?? whats that all about..

3)Unlimited atonement.. The statement seems to be saying two opposing things.. That God has chosen all humanity to receive atonement ( universalism ) but then it says ""whosoever will"" which seems to suggest only those humans that will to receive it will receive it.. Which is opposed to universalism..

4) Resistible grace: The definition seems clear to me and i agree with this one..

5) Assurance and security: The definition seems clear to me and i agree with this one..

lol

I dislike Calvinism because it changes the NATURE OF GOD.

Christ died for the sins of the whole world......
1 John 2:2

1. First of all it doesn't mean EVERYONE in the world is saved.
What a straw man!

There are CONDITIONS to being saved....Jesus died for everyone that ACCEPTS those conditions.

I must have been lucky because we never discussed this issue.

As far as your answer is concerned, that is very simple. God, who provided the necessary requirement for us to to be saved, would therefore not be in a habit of removing our salvation for every bump we hit in the road. And anyone truly saved, whether they sin or not, is not looking to leave God. But to those who have lost their salvation, it was not removed from them by God, it was given away by those who never were actually saved to begin with.

So you just limited who Christs death is applied to.

You don't understand that you just did that?

Christ died for the sins of the whole world of people who Believe in Him.

Christs death is SUFFICIENT for the sins of the whole world. But doesn't apply to the whole world.


Surely you understand that if Christ has died for the sins of the whole world without exception then there is nothing to be saved from? Everyone is already in a perfect, non-sin imputed to, state.

Or maybe you don't.

Jesus died for the sins of the whole world.
That's how great was His mission.

To avail ourselves of this great gift.....
We must accept it.

Not all do.

So let's see if we can untangle this.

The Lord Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. But it doesn't count until the individual people accept it.

So, effectively, the Lord Jesus died for the sins of all the people in the world that would accept His Death for the remission of their sin.


Its funny when people believe the same thing as Calvinism states but for some reason they think Calvinism is a dirty word so they must fight against it.

Its ok to let God be Sovereign... lol

So let's see if we can untangle this.

The Lord Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. But it doesn't count until the individual people accept it.

So, effectively, the Lord Jesus died for the sins of all the people in the world that would accept His Death for the remission of their sin.


Its funny when people believe the same thing as Calvinism states but for some reason they think Calvinism is a dirty word so they must fight against it.

Its ok to let God be Sovereign... lol

I have never thoroughly researched this subject and my simplistic view of it is this:

Total depravity

Calvinists say we’ve been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness, and Arminians say this helplessness is only partial. Well, everything we have comes from God and therefore if we already had spiritual assets before conversion that means God was already working on us. Besides, it makes no difference whether a person has spiritual assets or not before God's call because they will always need the Lord anyway.

Unconditional election

Calvinists say human beings are unable to choose by themselves to follow God, while Arminians think otherwise. I myself think God chooses us and we choose Him, and so neither side is completely right or completely wrong.

Unlimited Atonement

Calvinists say Jesus died for the elect only and Arminians say He died for all. Again, neither side is completely right or completely wrong. God wants everyone to be saved, but He knows that only a minority (the elect)will accept His whole truth. God is an infinite Being and we can’t understand this apparent contradiction.

Irresistible Grace

Calvinists say God’s grace is irresistible, while Arminians argue that it can be resisted.

We have free will to accept or to reject grace, but God knows beforehand who will accept it or not because (again) He is an infinite being.

Perseverance of the Saints

Calvinists say o.s.a.s. while Arminians say a Christian can fall away from grace. Paul was absolutely assured of his salvation whereas the author of Hebrews says that falling away from grace is possible (ch. 6 v. 4). Paul knew he was already saved, but he kept working hard for the Gospel because he was neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian.

Are you saying that calvinists believe a person chooses God and God does not "elect" that person?

You need to go back and study calvinism brother.
There is some confusion here.

And it's not with me.

Close! but I would say Jesus died effectively for the sins of the all the people of the world, but not all men/women made in the image of God have appropriated that free gift.

Sovereign = a word used by calvinists to let other calvinists know that they are Calvinists too😀

Grace is resistable to those who hold their personal pride a higher value .But faith is the gift to those who previously had none.

I guess you'll have to go back and try to read what was actually said. Maybe then you will be able to understand.

I don't understand how you can get that a Calvinist believes a person chooses God and God doesn't elect that person from what I wrote.

But I see why you would give up your original argument and try to move on to something else that you feel is wrong about Calvinism.