A different take on Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate

[Guest]

The following conversation reportedly took place in 1784 between Charles Simeon (a Calvinist) and John Wesley (an Arminian):

SIMEON: Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have sometimes been called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission, I will ask you a few questions…Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God if God had not first put it in your heart?

WESLEY: Yes, I do indeed.

SIMEON: And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do, and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

WESLEY: Yes, solely through Christ.

SIMEON: But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

WESLEY: No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

SIMEON: Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

WESLEY: No.

SIMEON: What then? Are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?

WESLEY: Yes, altogether.

SIMEON: And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

WESLEY: Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

SIMEON: Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance; it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree.


Charles Simeon, Expository Outlines on the Whole Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, reprinted 1956), vol. 1, pp. xvii-xviii.


Brothers, let us rejoice that keyboards have replaced daggers in these debates. I have been watching these exchanges with great interest. Not because of interest in the topic itself, but because of the group dynamic which is evolving out of this.

Because of the heat of this debate, there have been several suggestions of moderator intervention, rules of debate, etc. But I’d like to suggest a different paradigm if I may.

It’s easy for us to see the short term “bad fruit” of some of the unfortunate comments and ad hominem attacks that have been made and totally miss the bigger picture of what God might be doing here. I tend to think that through these little “skirmishes”, God can (and often does) work out humility, charity, and a unifying spirit in the hearts of its participants. I’ve already seen this begin to happen even in the present discussion.

One of the things I appreciate most about this forum is that free thought and expression is a core value here. The forum is self-policing by the community through rebukes and admonitions when people begin behaving in an un-Christ like manner. If you read through some of the old threads, you will see a number of times that this has occurred and how people have eventually humbled themselves through conviction of the Spirit. Likewise, I’ve had a number of people storm out of my bible studies because of something they felt was heresy to even suggest. One such man has had a change of heart and is growing more humble and charitable towards Christians with different views, seeking to understand rather than throw insults. This is not always, the case, but when it happens, it’s an incredible work of the Spirit to be observed! I believe that God can use our own childish tantrums as a "refining fire" to mature us in the faith and create in us a Christ-like spirit of humility and deference that transforms us “into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.” (2 Cor 3:18 ). God is long-suffering and I’m not sure He really needs us to defend His reputation and rescue His honor. So we can relax and let Him do that.

I think those who don't have the stomach to stick around here until the storm blows over miss out on a tremendous unifying work of God (though it may not seem so at the moment). I also think that creating rules that censor honest expression merely inhibit the path toward unity.

I say this, of course, with one minor caveat. In the spirit of Paul’s words to Titus:

Titus 3:10-11
10 Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.
NKJV

Those who refuse to accept the admonition from the Church to humble themselves and behave with a more Christ-like attitude should be disciplined (i.e. suspended and/or removed). I believe that this is the approach that Steve has taken on this forum in the past and I think it is a wise one.

I say let the debate rage on, but let us be sensitive to the conviction of the Spirit and allow ourselves to be transformed into the humble and charitable image of our Lord through the “renewing of our mind”.

[Guest]

Well said!

the debate is indeed very interesting. what i can't quite grasp, and what no one (on either side) has been able to explain to me, is why such passion is evoked by the debate.

Do calvinists think arminians are going to hell? or vice-versa? if not, I am not sure what "the big deal" is. it's kind of like the global warming debate; there are plenty of very good arguments on both sides, but what you end up believing likely depends on a "gut" feeling about the issue. at that point, debate often loses its ability to persuade.

TK

[Guest]

TK,

As a Calvinist, I am not concerned about any Arminian going to hell for his beliefs. I cannot speak for other Calvinists on this forum, since I do not know them personally.

There is a degree of wisdom to your post. We should not engage in discussions where there is no clear answer, since these are the "useless wranglings" that Paul warned us to avoid for just this reason. However, this is a very big deal as doctrine goes; the problem is the manner in which the debate is being handled is causing people to not pursue a careful study of the nature and works of God becasue they associate the discussion with ad hominem arguments and a lot of angry people misbehaving. Paul prayed in Eph. 1 that his readers would be given a spirit of wisdom and revelation to comprehend these deep matters, including election and predestination. We all need to realize that even as Christians, it is God that ultimately teaches us. Instead, what is happening is that people's remaining unconvinced by arguments that each of us feels "seals the deal" frustrate us, and we begin to draw unfair inferrences, such as that the person is in self-denial or that they lack integrity in their approach to the Scriptures. I am not trying out for "Humanitarian of the Year" here, but I say these things because I know how hard it was for me to be convinced of Reformed teaching. It took me almost a decade. How can I snap at a brother or sister who doesn't read my blog posts and want to switch denominations?

People like you are starting to wonder if this is worth it, and the answer is "No" if we resort to unChrist-like behavior. None of us, I hope, would talk to non-Christians this way; why talk to our own brothers in this manner?

[Guest]

Thanks for the response, David.

I was afraid that my post might come across as "doctrine doesnt matter" when I very much know that it does.

I still like RC sproul very much, as well as guys like Piper and Macarthur. I guess I am not emotionally attached to either viewpoint, simply because I can't be. I am not smart enough to figure out which side is actually right; or whether the correct answer is some mixture of the two.

I suppose part of the reason this debate has been bugging me a tad is that I have been spending many hours lately (during my work commute) listening to Steve G's verse by verse teaching through the life and teachings of christ, and his new Kingdom of God series. In light of what Jesus taught regarding how we should live our lives, there seems to be little point in arguing fine points of theology.

Note that I said seems to be. perhaps i am simply missing, from a practical standpoint, the importance of one viewpoint over the other. In other words, if some genius was able to prove that one of the two viewpoints was absolutely correct, how would my practical christian life change? I dont see that it would, probably because it didnt really change when my view changed from a more calvinistic understanding to a more arminian understanding. Well, it did change for the better, but it had nothing to do with my theological views on that point, rather, I have simply grown in my personal walk and devotion to christ, just as we all should be doing.

That being said, I must confess that I am something of a hypocrite because I love arguing certain aspects of theology; I just find the C/A debate a trifle dry. However, I have been reading the posts, so debate away!

TK

[Guest]

the debate is indeed very interesting. what i can't quite grasp, and what no one (on either side) has been able to explain to me, is why such passion is evoked by the debate.


Jesus told us God is our Father in Heaven so i have the image of a good father who intervenes when it's beneficial for his children. IMO Calvinism portrays God in a different way then the way Jesus portrayed Him and in a way not very flattering. Calvinists think they portray God in a flattering way by giving Him all the credit for salvation but i believe they ignore the dark side of their belief system.

[Guest]

There are other theological issues which sharply divide Christians also.

I have a pastor freind who is "Oneness". He said he knew some "Oneness" people who believe that no Trinitarians are true Christians, and some Trinitarians who believe that no "Oneness" people are true Christians.

This pastor friend does not himself take this extreme position. Indeed, we have discussed issues online for years. He knows that I am neither Trinitarian nor "Oneness"; yet he calls me "Brother".

So it seems that some people define "true Christian" as one who subscribes to paricular theological beliefs. Instead, I believe, Steve Gregg believes, and I think several people who post on this forum believe, that a true Christian is one who has let go of the self life in repentance, and is living in submission to Christ as Lord of his life.

It is not necessary to hold a particular philosophical or theological view in order to be a disciple of Christ ---- a true Christian.

[Guest]

So it seems that some people define "true Christian" as one who subscribes to paricular theological beliefs. Instead, I believe, Steve Gregg believes, and I think several people who post on this forum believe, that a true Christian is one who has let go of the self life in repentance, and is living in submission to Christ as Lord of his life.


Amen, brother Paidion!

[Guest]

To quote A.W. Tozer from "Knowledge of The Holy" on a different topic, this bears true also for a great number of theological topics relating to the nature and being of God (such as, I think, Calvinism):

....
Again the question of use arises. ”Of what use to me is, the knowledge that God is immutable?” someone asks. ”Is not the whole thing mere metaphysical speculation? Something that might bring a certain satisfaction to persons of a particular type of mind but can have no real significance for practical men?”

If by ”practical men” we mean unbelieving men engrossed in secular affairs and indifferent to the claims of Christ, the welfare of their own souls, or the interests of the world to come, then for them such a book as this can have no meaning at all; nor, unfortunately, can any other book that takes religion seriously. But while such men may be in the majority, they do not by any means compose the whole of the population. There are still the seven thousand who have not bowed their knees to Baal. These believe they were created to worship God and to enjoy His presence forever, and they are eager to learn all they can about the God with whom they expect to spend eternity.
....

Basically, I believer there is no greater use of our time and intellect than to seek to know and understand our God, particularly if it helps us to know, understand, and follow His will for our lives.

[Guest]

Basically, I believer there is no greater use of our time and intellect than to seek to know and understand our God, particularly if it helps us to know, understand, and follow His will for our lives.

No doubt!

However, the fact remains that believing certain propositions concerning God does not define a disciple of Christ or determine what a disciple of Christ is.

[Guest]

That supposed exchange between Wesley and this man seems farfetched, and of course, the Calvinist comes out looking good. Having read a lot from Wesley, his debates with various Calvinists, and other autobiographical material, I highly doubt this exchange took place, and if it did, it is incomplete. Things are not as simplistic as those questions indicate. The fact of the matter is while Whitefield was losing 70% of his converts becasue he left then in the hands of God and "His Sovereignty", Wesley pressed them to go onto perfection, entire sanctification, and discipleship. Therefore Wesley retained the majority of his converts, and also so changed England that even secular historians admit Wesley saved England from a bloody revolution, like had happened in France. As for this mr. Simeon, history records no such accolades, fruit and impact. Aside from this story, he is unknown. That should tell us something about him supposedly getting the best of Wesley.