Both Calvinists and Arminians believe that as a result of sinful nature inherited from Adam, man left to his own devices lacks the will or ability to repent and turn to God. Both believe that God must first act in order for man to respond. Both believe in the doctrine of Total Depravity and inability.Some Calvinists such as John MacArthur have misrepresented Arminians in saying that Arminians believe that "the sinner unaided by the Holy Spirit must make the first move". Fortunately there are still some Calvinists out there who make the effort to accurately portray those who have opinions different to their own.
Where the two systems part is in the remedy to this problem of inability. Arminians teach that God works through Prevenient Grace in order to enable sinners to respond. Calvinists teach that God first makes a sinner born again, and then the sinner can only choose to repent, and in fact cannot choose not to repent. The difference is in whether God allows his grace to be resistible or not.
Calvinists such as John Piper have said that Arminians don't believe in Total Depravity as Calvinists do. A quote from Piper (which can be found at 4:45 in this video) says "Calvinism says people are so depraved and rebellious that they're unable to trust God without a special work of grace to change their hearts so that they necessarily and willingly believe. In other words if this grace doesn't compel them to believe they won't believe." (As a side note, I do appreciate Piper's honesty in saying that Arminians believe in the necessity of grace to believe, given that misrepresentation in this area is so rampant by many.)
If the above is how the Calvinists specifically define Total Depravity, then there is a difference between the two camps (not that Calvinism should be the benchmark for the term in the first place). To the Arminian, the difference isn't in the Depravity. It's not that we believe we are "less totally depraved" than Calvinists do. The difference is in God's power. Does God have the ability to enable a sinner to repent who is totally depraved, without having to do so irresistibly? Arminians such as myself say God could act irresistibly, (though he decides to do otherwise.) It seems the real difference between the views is that Calvinists limit God's power in saying that God is unable to enable a sinner without acting irresistibly.
Good point, A's and C's both hold to depravity. The difference is the way God works through grace.
ReplyDeleteNice to see the new blog post too. :)
I have such a hard time sometimes defending my arminian viewpoint against calvinists - this article is really helpful. I'm adding you to my blogroll!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the encouraging words :)
ReplyDelete[It seems the real difference between the views is that Calvinists limit God's power in saying that God is unable to enable a sinner without acting irresistibly.]
ReplyDeleteI beg to disagree. Calvinists are known for their faithful commitment to God's absolute sovereignty and omnipotence, and this includes His ability to enable man to do something without necessarily making him do it.
However, in the case of God's bringing the elect to faith, God does not merely enables them, but also infuses in them willingness to believe. "For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Php. 2:13).
Hi Jeph,
ReplyDeletePerhaps that is what you believe, however whether what you believe logically avoids my statement is yet to be seen (or perhaps you would disagree with Pipers' statement).
Piper basically says that men are "so depraved" that an irresistible force is required for them to repent and believe. When you think about it, it is a logical absurdity. Not only a logical absurdity, but a cheap shot that implies those who don't believe in irresistible grace have a lesser view of mans depravity.
The fact is, there is no logical link between the degree of man's depravity and the necessity of irresistible grace.
If anything, to say that grace *has* to be irresistible in order to overcome depravity implies that God is unable to enable a unbeliever without acting irresistibly. - That is actually an indication of something God cannot do (and so it's an indication of God's ability or there lack of, rather than man being "so depraved").
Of course you may disagree with Piper here and that's fine, in which case this wouldn't apply to you.
Blessings,
Daniel
Hey Daniel,
DeleteI know this post is old but I ran across it doing some research and your reply and wanted to point out the if A's and C's view TP differently as you even stated your blog ("...If the above is how the Calvinists specifically define Total Depravity then there is a difference between the two camps...") that the issue is one of inability then the notion of irresistable grace is not an absurdity at all.
In the Arminian view, if TP does not mean total inability but that the will is restored through Prevenient Grace through the human agent is not regenerated then the agent would be able to resist.
However if the Calvinists view TP as inability then the only way to enable the human agent to respond is if regeneration takes place via irresistable grace. This then is not a logical absurdity nor does it indicate there is something God cannot do and is consistent with the way in which Piper described the Calivinist view of TP.
Hi Bob,
DeleteYou said “In the Arminian view, if TP does not mean total inability but that the will is restored through Prevenient Grace through the human agent is not regenerated then the agent would be able to resist.”
The problem is you have misrepresented the Arminian view of total depravity.
Actually in the Arminian view TP ***DOES*** mean total inability. Prevenient grace comes later, but is not part of the depravity. Your characterisation would be like me saying “In the Calvinist view TP does not mean total inability for the elect, but that the will is restored through irresistible regeneration”.
The reality is that TP DOES mean total inability; both for the Arminian, and for the Calvinist. The difference is in the remedy for the depravity. We can disagree on what the remedy is for sure, however Piper makes the mistake of implying that Calvinists must believe in a “higher degree” of TP, because irresistible grace is required to overcome it. Piper’s conclusion is non sequitur and logically invalid.
Dan
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHi Paulnabon,
ReplyDeleteAs you might be able to tell from the fact that I haven't posted on here for some time I have not been keeping this Blog up to date or replying to messages for some time. Please read the "Read Before Commenting" below before commenting. If you have questions that are unrelated to the post you are commenting on, I would suggest contacting the Society of Evangelicals, or looking through their content.
Blessings
Help required at http://www.christianforums.com/f83/
ReplyDeleteDefenders of the true faith are in a minority on this calvinist recruiting forum.
Please join up and help out the beleaguered Christians there.
An assault in progress...
DeleteAn assault in progress...Christianforums.com/soteriology
by nobdysfool
It seems that the anti-Calvinists have decided to launch an all-out assault on Calvinists in the Soteriology forum. Many of us Calvinists have decided to just sit back and let them run with it for a while, and true to form, they have begun making fools out of themselves. They are trying to bait and goad the Calvinists, in the hopes that they can report us and remove some of us from the field. In that, they are failing miserably. The sheer amount of misinformation displayed is staggering!
It seems obvious to me that so much misinformation about Calvinism is being promoted because Calvinist theology is a true threat to the status quo of many churches in America, as well as the UK, Canada, and even Australia. And yet the predominate theological understanding of Christians in China, is Calvinist. China is a field ripe for harvest, there is a real hunger there, and the Calvinist teachings have taken root and have grown very quickly in China and the Far East.
So much for the claim by these yobs in the forum that Calvinism is a failed, false theology. They simply do not know what they're talking about. If it wasn't so sad, it would be comical....
To me, it has just become an exciting, fun challenge. I honed my Calvinist teeth in Free Republic, where there was a time when the Religion Forum was a rollicking, free-for-all, a regular punch-fest.
ReplyDeleteI learned how to take it, and how to give it. I learned how to insult someone subtly, how to read someone’s pedigree nicely, and how to cut to the heart of a matter. As I said, it was a verbal punch-fest, so these wimps in Soteriology wouldn’t have lasted a day there. I can’t use but maybe 20% of the methods I learned, or I would be perma-banned in less than a day. As it is, I have had action against me by the mods here, some deserved, and some not.
CALLED AND CHOSEN
ReplyDeleteMatthew 22:14 For many are called , but few are chosen."
Definition of called: Invited or summoned.
Definition of chosen: Those who are eligible or suited for election. Elected and chosen are synonymous.
WHO ARE THE CALLED?
Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
Every person who has heard the gospel has been called. The call is not limited to a select few who have been predestined for salvation.
WHO ARE THE CHOSEN (THE ELECTED)?
The chosen are the ones who are obedient to the call of the gospel.
The chosen are those who have 1. Faith: John 3:16
The chosen are those who 2. Repent: Acts 3:19 (Repent means to make the commitment to turn from sin and turn toward God).
The chosen are those who 3. Confess: Roman 10:9-10
The chosen are those who are 4. Baptized in water: Acts 2:38
The chosen are not those who were supposedly, unconditionally selected, for salvation. The chosen have to be suited for election.
THE CALLED WHO ARE NOT CHOSEN.
Matthew 22:2-3 "the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. 3 And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come.
Many have had the gospel preached to them, but of their own free-will have rejected the call. If men reject the gift of eternal life by rejecting Jesus as Lord and Savior; then they have been called, but not chosen.
Matthew 22:11-14 "But when the king came to look over the dinner quests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes, 12 and he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?" 13 Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' 14 For many are called but few are chosen."
This wedding quest was disinvited. He was called but not chosen ; because he was not suitable to be chosen. Improper clothing was a big deal.
Galatalians 3:27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
DO YOU HAVE THE PROPER WEDDING CLOTHES TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
When you stand before the KING OF KINGS are you going to be speechless when He asks; where are your wedding clothes? WHAT WILL YOU SAY WHEN HE ASKS YOU WHY YOU REJECTED IMMERSION IN WATER FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS. WHAT WILL YOU ANSWER BE, WHEN JESUS ASKS YOU WHY YOU THOUGHT YOU COULD ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD WITH BEING CLOTHED IN CHRIST?
MANY ARE CALLED BUT FEW ARE CHOSEN!
YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY CHRISTIAN BLOG. Google search>>>>>steve finnell a christian view
Arminians needed.
ReplyDeleteThree Calvy bullies banned from www.christianforums.com/f83 ( Soteriology) .
However there are no Arminian believers defending their faith.
Please will some Arminians sign up to this forum to rectify this. Please pass the request around.
If God could at irresistibly then why doesn't he?
ReplyDeleteAnd why is it a limit to God's power to say that he acts irresistibly?
The real limit to God's power is for Him to act resistibly.
God could act resistibly but why would He? What would be the point of that?
Think of it this way, what if you were told to do a science fair project. If you had the ability would you do it in a way that you could loose the science fair or in a way that you would absolutely win it?
If God does His work resistibly then how does anyone not resist it?
If it is by assisting grace or prevenient grace, then that must mean that He doesn't bestow this same grace on everyone. God leaves some that do resist Him and go to Hell. (I am a believer in double predestination.)
I am very good at debating. I am very dogmatic. But I am a Calvinist and I will stand firm in my faith because I haven't herd any Arminian arguments that Calvinism couldn't beat. So look into it.
sorry its if God could act irresistibly
DeleteHi Anyomous,
ReplyDeleteYou said "The real limit to God's power is for Him to act resistibly."
This simply is not true. God could act irresistibly if he wanted to, but it's his choice as to how he wants to act.
You said "God could act resistibly but why would He? What would be the point of that?"
Perhaps he desires to preserve an element of freedom in his creation, which is arguably necessary for genuine relationship. Even without an answer, God could have reason unknown to us, so this "objection" really carries no wight at all.
Your other points are completely unsubstantiated or non sequitur, so don't really need addressing (you didn't make any coherent logical counterarguments) against the post. This post was not about a theological debate, but about clariffying the differences between the systems.
You said: "I am very good at debating. I am very dogmatic. But I am a Calvinist and I will stand firm in my faith because I haven't herd any Arminian arguments that Calvinism couldn't beat. So look into it."
Frankly I think this rhetoric is unhelpful. There are number of arguments on this site that I welcome you to "beat".