January 18, 2009

Understanding Each Other: The Central Difference Between Calvinists and Arminians

The ongoing debate between Calvinists and Arminians is often complicated by misunderstandings of the other side. This is particularly the case when it comes to the central convictions which form the foundation and inform the remainder of both Calvinistic and Arminian thinking. One reason for such misunderstandings is that we all too often read only those who agree with us rather than those who actually hold positions different from our own. All parties will benefit from engagement with primary sources on the other side of the theological issue.

One of the central issues over which Calvinists and Arminians disagree, and of which there seems to be great misunderstanding, is that of where one should begin doing theology or the central proposition from which the rest of our respective theologies stem. Arminians often think Calvinists are committed primarily to a certain understanding of predestination. This, however, is not the fundamental commitment of Calvinists. Instead, Calvinists are first and foremost committed to the ultimate sovereignty of God in salvation. They are attempting to guard against the possibility of the glorious work of God in salvation being attributed to some form of human effort which, they think, is a consequence of Arminian theology. Their understanding of unconditional election, predestination, etc. flows out of this basic commitment to the meticulous sovereignty of God in salvation.

In contrast, it is often thought that Arminians are primarily committed to the freedom of the human will. This, though, is not the case. Classical and faithful Arminians do not actually affirm that humans have any natural freedom of the will. Instead, with the Calvinists, we affirm that the will is in bondage to sin. The fundamental issue and the starting point for our theology is the character of God. We believe that the concept of unconditional election necessarily implies the coordinate doctrine of unconditional reprobation. Such an implication, we claim, impugns the character of God by making him the author of evil. Thus, our fundamental commitment is to upholding and defending the character of God which only then leads to our understanding of the will as having been freed and enabled by grace to respond to the offer of salvation freely by faith.

These commitment are at the heart of the debate. The Calvinist/Arminian dialogue will be more fruitful if we understand these central convictions rather than arguing against inaccurate perceptions of the other side.

2 comments:

pointnine said...

Beautiful, kudos. This is what we need, an honest striving to properly understand the other view(s), as its proponents understand it. I really appreciated that Robert Picirilli's book Grace,Faith,Free Will begins with laying out Calvinist belief as Calvinists understand it. I even got my best friend -- a Calvinist -- to read it and confirm (or deny) that it was accurate and she confirmed it. And I know she would affirm what you wrote here, as I of course would for the Arminian side.

(Unlike the Wikipedia article on Perseverance, for example, which says that the central tenet of Arminianism is not believing in the doctrine of perseverance...I think that must be news to a lot of Arminians -- especially those who do believe in perseverance!)

Straw man arguments are great for rallying those ignorant of the facts, but are useless in real debate or striving for greater understanding.

andrew said...

Thank you, for this helpful dialog and willingness to understand both sides. At this stage of my relationship with our Lord, I am open to the arguments of both positions, in the many variations and multiple forms that they take. However, I must admit that I am strongly leaning to a position of sovereignty, even though I am a Methodist. I am comfortable with John Wesley’s position on the matter, but I don’t think I agree with it. I want to remain humble and say that my disagreement with Arminians is because of my ignorance of their position and not because they are incorrect.

Is this an accurate synopsis of the Arminian objection that “impugns the character of God by making him the author of evil:”
Isn’t the objection to the implication of unconditional reprobation based on that God would, therefore, not be fair. Or is it that Arminians and Calvinists have a different view of original sin and how sin entered the world. Couldn’t sin have entered the world and corrupted it in the same manner under both systems without the authorship of God?

If we are freed to respond to grace what is the difference between one who believes and one who does not believe?

These are the questions that dog me.