Calvinism vs. Arminianism: Debunking Myths
I put together a short video presentation on popular myths surrounding the debates between Calvinists and Arminians. I also included what the debate is really about and also tips for more fruitful dialogue. It has a running time of 19:12.
Mar 4th 2006 
13 Comments 
Mar 4th 2006
WHO CARES!!!!!! All the discussion of this topic is beyond pedantic. We humans are a very small minded bunch eternally trying to match wits with the Creator of the universe. This whole debate is just stupid stupid stupid!! Its quite simple Gods got the brains and forsight of who what when and where. WE DONT! We have His word that says preach the Gospel. So its real simple. Let God do his thing and get busy doing what He's tolds us to do and stop debating the views of two dead guys!
Mar 4th 2006
Normally, I would delete a comment like this, but this is just priceless. Oh, and you obviously didn't watch the presentation, because if you would have you would've heard me talk about about unity in spreading God's blessing to the nations. Priceless.
Mar 5th 2006
I can't get it to download. ):
Mar 5th 2006
It'll load, it's just a large file.
Mar 5th 2006
Anonymous:
We are called to an understanding of doctrine which gives us a more complete understanding of God based on His revelation in scripture. See:
Hebrews 5:12-14
Hebrews 6:1
Hebrews 6:1
As long as we claim any part in our redemption we continue to attempt to rob God of the glory due Him as the Giver of faith:
Ephesians 2:8-9
Gift, get it? As in a Giver having something and giving it to another!
Mar 6th 2006
BTW - I did watch - and it does take some time to load. Sorry if I came on too strong or the wrong way. Its diffucult to convey tone. :) We are one mind on the need for unity. That was my point. The comment was not directed so much at you, but to those who will take those myths and use them as darts. Again, I agree on the importance to understand doctrine. However on this issue, many times poeple are not learning for God's glory but for thier own to win an argument. Peace!!
Mar 11th 2006
Chris,
Thank you very much for offering your audio lecture on the myths surrounding Calvinism/Arminianism. I know that you are motivated by a love for God and people, and I know that you study hard for God's glory. I commend you for these things.
One of the strengths of your presentation is the wide range of issues you covered in a short period of time. The inherent danger in this approach, however, is oversimplification. Because you are diligent, you avoided this more than not.
Another strength is the advice you give about understanding how the other side defines terms or understands key words like Sovereignty and Freedom. You know me, so you know I would very much appreciate this
point. :)
Perhaps the major criticism I have is that the presentation seemed to go about explaining the issues in a backwards way – that is, you list on the one hand these labels, Calvinism and Arminianism, and on the other hand you list what each believes. However, people and beliefs are the objects that we apply the labels to .. so should they not be the starting point rather than the labels? In other words, it isn't the case (as can be understood from your lecture) that Calvinism just is the beliefs you list (such as Limited Atonement, etc.) and that Arminianism just is the beliefs you list (such as that you can lose your salvation). Rather, it is that there are several issues on the table, and certain people believe different things.
Because of your approach, you implied that all Calvinists, by definition, believe x things and all Arminians, by definition, believe y things. Thus, you left no room for the individual to choose his or her own beliefs. I am not a Calvinist; however, my belief about salvation is not like those Arminians who believe we gain and lose our salvation several times in our lives. Bruce Ware is not an Arminian; however, he does not hold to the Calvinistic understanding of Limited Atonement.
The point of your lecture was, I think, to refute the idea that all Calvinists believe p, let's say, where p means "Calvinists don't think they have any reason to evangelize." That's clearly a myth. In refuting it, you could provide examples of Calvinists who evangelize TO THE MAX. :)
Now, the other point .. the idea that Calvinism logically nullifies the need to evangelize, is not a caricature. (For instance, if God is Sovereign in the sense that Calvinists think of Sovereignty, then God could have simply created a universe in which each person He wanted to save was saved apart from evangelism.) Properly argued, it is a serious obstacle the Calvinist must understand and refute. This understanding and refutation of it ought not to be a goal in this present presentation. It ought to be taken up in another presentation altogether.
Similarly, the idea that all Arminians think that s, where s means that "God isn't Sovereign" is clearly a myth. Of COURSE not all Arminians think that God isn't Sovereign. (In fact, NO thinking, Bible-believing ones think this.) So, THIS is a myth you want to address in your presentation. And you may refute this by citing Arminians who believe in God's Sovereignty.
Now, the other point .. the idea that Arminianism logically nullifies God's Sovereignty, is not a caricature. (For instance, if man is free in the Libertarian sense, then God cannot be Sovereign if by "Sovereign" we mean that Libertarian Freedom is impossible.) Properly argued, it is a serious obstacle that the Arminian must understand and refute. This understanding and refutation, again, is not a goal in your present lecture.
My point is, that there are two issues behind every point .. and that isn't clear in the presentation.
Nevertheless, I again thank you for this – and for all your efforts in this life. I look up to, even though you are younger than I am in the Faith, because you are clearly indwelled by Christ. Simon
Mar 11th 2006
Simon,
Thanks for your words of encouragement. I had you in mind through much of putting the lecture together, and how much I have learned in dialoging with those who believer differently than I on these issues through our dialogue.
For your points...
First, because it was so short there were certainly limitations in how I approached it. Since I wanted it to be approachable, I decided not to list all the nuances in beliefs between the two sides. In all honesty, while there are 4 point Calvinists/4 point Arminians, I wanted to present what was the historical, most consistent application of both sides. I just didn't have time to list what Ware's view on the atonement was. My goal was simply to outline what the major issues were. By starting with the labels: understand that I made the presentation not for someone like you or I, but someone who was caught in a misunderstanding of what the debate was about. The presentation of my lecture necessarily had me working with the titles: "Calvinism/Arminianism" to illustrate the myths on both sides. Please see how I had to structure the presentation, and that the presentation was for the lay-person less affluent with the issues at hand. I wasn't giving someone a choice A or B, nor did I ever imply that; my point was to explain the issues and encourage those less knowledgeable to become more knowledgeable.
I certainly cannot agree that the caricture on Calvinism, namely that evangelism is not necessary, is not a caricture. The same Jesus who said John 6:44 gave the parable of soils (to which I mentioned). The unfolding narrative of the Bible, that God will bring blessing to all peoples ("nations") through the Abrahamic Covenant centers around man's participation in spreading the Gospel to all nations. Think of the parable of the soils as the greatest balance: it is not for us to determine whether or not the seeds grow (that is, who God will regenerate), it is only our job to throw the seeds. That is the meaning of the parable itself. That's why Jesus says that it is the most important, and that without understanding that parable the disciples would not be able to understand any of the others. Also, I mentioned Whitefield, Edwards, and Spurgeon in the presentation who did evangelize TO THE MAX.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying about your "s" up there. I was saying that Calvinists blast the Arminians with believing that. I was showing that it was a caricature. I would, in all honesty, agree that Arminianism does nullify God's sovereignty, because it is diametrically opposed to the Calvinistic view of sovereignty, but I was trying to get us passed using such meaningless attacks. I don't want to say that to an Arminian, because that debate will go no where.
So yes, there are two sides to every point, but please understand what the aim was behind the presentation. It was by no means meant to be all-encompassing.
I look to you too brother. May the Love of God continue to show itself through you. Chris
Mar 12th 2006
Yep, you did quote evangelical Calvinists .. I should have added, "and you did" after I wrote, "In refuting it, you could provide examples of Calvinists who evangelize TO THE MAX. :)"
The caricature is in saying that Calvinists believe that evangelism is uncessary. The argument can be made that Calvinism, taken to its logical end, nullifies the need for evangelism. Properly argued, this is not a caricature. You understand the distinction I am making here because you make the same one regarding Arminianism and the Sovereignty of God. It would be a caricature for you to say that Arminians believe that their Arminianism leads to a rejection of the Sovereignty of God. What is not a caricature, when properly argued, is that Arminianism does lead to a rejection of the Sovereignty of God as defined in a Calvinistic sense. You show this when you say, "I would, in all honesty, agree that Arminianism does nullify God's sovereignty, because it is diametrically opposed to the Calvinistic view of sovereignty."
Nov 20th 2006
Let me know If Im getting this wrong but did someone say that Calvinism negates the cause of preaching the gospel. IF someone did...just lettin ya know....you'll find that majority of calvinist based thinkers evangelize more than arminianist in ratio comparison anyday...NOT THAT ANY OF THESE THEORY should affect your relationship with God...but I DISAGREE that theology is not important compared to preaching the gospel....PREACHING THE GOSPEL IS THE DOCTRINE of theology...yo you can't preach the gospel without theology(which in definition is studying the bible!)
I believe that you need to know where you stand on these theories....labels are horrible...I know...but this is more than labels...this is authenticated theories that describe how logics go around in Christianity. There are books out there called "WHy I am not a Calvinist?" and another one..."Why I am not an Arminian?"...Both by different authors...funny that only to find that the person representing arminianism doesn't have half the scriptural reference to back up any of his points...The one representing Calvinists did!!...
God bless
Nov 21st 2006
Daine,
I would disagree that your theology shouldn't effect your relationship with God. In fact, if the study of theology doesn't do that it would all be for naught. Orthodoxy should transform into orthopraxy.
Dec 18th 2008
i agree, i'm sick of this whole thing. What's the deal? Where's the beef? It's stupid!
i can understand the calvinist contention when it comes to the arminian statement that we are sustained through obedience through grace, that's not grace; but i just can't understand how they (calvinists) think that regeneration comes before believing in Christ. It happens after you're saved. Once you're born again to a new and living hope and have become a new creation.
John 3:3 (ASV)
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
1 Peter 1:3-5 (ASV)
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4 unto an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
5 who by the power of God are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
..to me it's pretty simple. You don't have to have a seminary degree to understand that to be one of the elect you have to receive salvation by grace through faith..it's a no brainer (once you're saved and can comprehend the fullness of the truth)..but the dogmatic calvinist says that God chose us literally (before time began) and that we can't understand Him before we're saved (which is true) unless He chose in eternity past for us to be saved ahead of time. It's almost like saying that you already have to be saved to be saved.
i mean as an afterthought it's figuratively beautiful, like God looked down through time and saw you make that decision so you were already sealed in light of eternity, like Him viewing the whole parade at once and us only watching it go by through a knothole in the fence (partially arminian); but to say that someone believes in a false god because they believe that in order to be saved (become one of Gods elect) you need to receive Christ as Savior first is mad silly. They believe that to be a works based salvation. :???:
So the one thing that He asks that we do..namely to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved has become damnable?
i don't consider myself in either camp.
:rant over:
Dec 20th 2008
Understand that the regeneration before faith issue is based on how one understands depravity. Based on how you believe God deals with depravity will alter your view on this. Calvinists believe that not only is man completely dead, but that he must be awoken before faith can occur. While Arminians believe this (well at least they say the do) they believe a prevenient or effectual grace is giving to everyone to allow the decision.