I've been avoiding getting into this discussion, and maybe I should think better of it at this point as well, but here I am diving in. I don't want to get too much into the particulars though, just make a general statement.

I am a Calvinist and remain a Calvinist through all this discussion, but I appreciate the Arminian position too, I just don't think it has the solid scriptural foundation the Calvinist position does. There is scripture on both sides of this argument and that being the case I think we have to say that in a sense both sides of it are true. Scripture for instance says both that God hardened Pharoah's heart and that Pharoah hardened his own heart. Both are true. Scripture says God predestined us to salvation (yes I think it's biased hairsplitting to claim that's not what is meant) but scripture also exhorts us to believe time and time again. Even a Calvinist who believes in the absolute sovereignty of God also believes that we are responsible for our own choices and actions and will be judged on them in the end. We also believe in evangelism and pleading with people to come to the Lord for salvation -- because believing in God's absolute sovereignty does not give us permission to be passive about these things -- scripture also exhorts us to action. We are not in a position to know God's decrees, who He plans to save and who not; therefore we give the gospel to all and we pray for our unsaved loved ones.

The Arminian position seems to be that it would be unfair of God to predestine or foreordain the outcome of all things and yet hold us responsible for our actions at the same time, but isn't this what scripture teaches? Is it unfair of God to harden Pharoah's heart and yet hold him responsible for his hardened heart too? The problem comes from thinking too hard about these things. Scripture says both but you'll give yourself a mental charleyhorse if you try to figure it all out. It's like the Trinity. We can't understand it but we know scripture teaches it. Believe it and leave it to God to sort out.

How can God foresee something without also foreordaining or predestining it? Are you saying that God has all knowledge but not all power? What kind of God wouldn't have all power? What kind of "election" is it that only elects those who have already chosen from their own free will? Kind of takes all the stuffing out of the word. Do any of you think you had the ability in yourselves to choose Christ? Should I say Oh God knew at the foundation of the world that I'd choose Christ because I'm so smart? That's a kind of works thinking. I don't think many Arminians really think they chose Christ because they were so smart in themselves, I think they believe God had to give them the understanding and faith in order to do so. Much of what has been said here shows they know that God saved them, they didn't save themselves, and that if God doesn't sustain them they won't be able to persevere to the end. They recognize their own weakness and their need of God for all of their Christian life. This is really all Calvinism is saying.

connie says

I am a Calvinist and remain a Calvinist through all this discussion, but I appreciate the Arminian position too

Then you are what I call a intellectual believer, you only believe with your head the gospel truthes and not with a spiritual conviction if you appreciate God dishonoring doctrine like arminianism..

My, namecalling seems to be your method here. How about a little charity? A little benefit of the doubt? A little grace to those of a different persuasion? I'm trying to get at the motivations I believe underlie the Arminian doctrines, although I don't accept the doctrines.

Both sides of this dispute consider the other side to be God-dishonoring. Calvinists see Arminians as denying the sovereignty of God, cutting God's power down to human size and allowing for human merit in believing in Christ, and making a mockery of the scriptural concepts of predestination and election; Arminians see Calvinists as denying God's love and mercy and making a mockery of all the commands and calls to righteousness and all the scripture that exhorts us to believe and obey.

I believe that Arminians are putting too much trust in their own understanding rather than in what scripture actually says, but this can also happen on the Calvinist side because the Calvinist doctrines are not easy to grasp -- this is why it is so easy for people to fall into "hypercalvinism" and lose enthusiasm for evangelizing and even for obedience. That does happen in Calvinist circles although it's not true Calvinism. It's just that the human intellect can't readily grasp things from the perspective of God. So at some level arguing over it doesn't really get us anywhere.

Calvinism and Arminianism are the two extremes. The truth is somewhere in the middle. We use scripture to reconcile the differences.

Please quote the verses referring to predestination - not one of them states or implies we are predestined to salvation. What they do teach is that those who are in Christ are predestined to an inheritance, to be comformed to the image of Christ, to be adopted, to be called, justified and glorified.

Originally Posted by Beth

Calvinism and Arminianism are the two extremes. The truth is somewhere in the middle. We use scripture to reconcile the differences.

You are right - neither extreme is Biblical. Both are unbalanced.

Please quote the verses referring to predestination - not one of them states or implies we are predestined to salvation. What they do teach is that those who are in Christ are predestined to an inheritance, to be comformed to the image of Christ, to be adopted, to be called, justified and glorified.

OK

Eph 1:5
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

This is exactly what I meant by biased hairsplitting on the Arminian side. Who are they who are adopted as children by Jesus Christ to himself but those He has saved? There is no distinction. If we are saved we are adopted. If we are adopted we are saved. Knowing that adoption as children is what salvation means is important, but it is just word games to make the kind of distinction Arminians want to make here.

Eph*1:11
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

Exactly the same situation. Who obtains an inheritance but those who have been given salvation? This is just another way of describing what our salvation entails. How could we be predestined to the one but not the other?

And it is hard to understand why Arminians are so dead set against the idea that we are predestined to salvation since I know you don't think you saved yourselves. But that is the only alternative. If you were not chosen for salvation from the foundation of the world, but your salvation was only foreseen by God, then the only explanation is that somehow you had the power in yourself to choose salvation, which God looking down the centuries foresaw you would have, and that would be the same as salvation by your own ability or salvation by works, something you could boast of. Oh, God didn't predestine me, He just saw that I would have the spiritual acuteness to choose Christ. I know you don't believe that but by insisting on this distinction you are implying it.

Romans 8:29
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

And who would be predestined to be conformed to the image of God's Son but those who are saved? Again, you think you can believe that all the qualities and privileges of salvation could be predestined but not salvation itself? That just makes no logical sense.

Romans 8:30
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Same as the above. This is all talking about those who are saved. Or DO you think you saved yourself and now that you got yourself saved God has predestined all these percs of salvation for you? How is that different from saying that you somehow earned salvation by your own power and deserve all the privileges of salvation that you earned by your own works?

I am not an arminian - and I don't base my doctrine on guessworks. What those passages on predestination deal with is what God will do for or with those that get saved. You are hard-pressed to find ANY Bible verse that states anyone is predestined to salvation, predestined to Heaven or Hell - and there is a big difference between these two positions.

I don't think the two doctrines are the extremes of some hypothetical correct position that supposedly lies in the middle somewhere, but I do think that's what people end up doing with it because of our inability to grasp things at God's level. Doctrinally I believe Calvinism is correct, and Arminianism is simply the result of being unable to fully grasp the Calvinist perspective, which is quite understandable since many Calvinists don't get it right either. It's easy to think yourself into a muddle on this subject.

I am not an arminian - and I don't base my doctrine on guessworks. What those passages on predestination deal with is what God will do for or with those that get saved.

They are really the equivalent of salvation, they are part of what salvation is, what salvation means, and separating them is to make a false distinction. It makes no sense that those things would be predestined but not salvation itself. You are simply taking advantage of the fact that scripture didn't use the term "salvation" explicitly, but it is certainly implied.