Could Calvinism and Arminianism both be correct?

[nototter]

I know that the title for this post sounds a bit absurd (and possibly even post-modern), but please bear with me. I don't know anyone who really enjoys challenging theological discussions, and I figured that this might be a good place to vent a theory that has been buzzing around in my brain for the past few years.

While it is widely regarded Calvinism and Arminianism consist of five points, its seems that the first point of each encompasses the other four points, that is, the debate is chiefly between the theory of predestination and the theory of free will. I do not believe those two points are mutually exclusive. In fact, I believe they may be co-dependent. Allow me to explain-

I have noticed two things about humans: our character is defined by our actions, and our actions are defined by our character. When we trace this pattern back to it's origin, we find that the only real variable in the life of each individual is their starting point in relation to the starting points of each other individual. Holding that God is Omnipresent- not merely in space, but in time (assuming, of course, that time is non-linear)- and Omnipotent, then He could easily arrange these starting points to his liking (Calvinism). From that point, if we make all of our choices of our own free-will (Arminianism), our paths both as individuals and as a species could be thoroughly mapped from beginning to end. In this scenario, humans are fully responsible for their own actions and those actions were predestined.

Say, for example, you toss a football to a friend knowing that they will catch it. When they do catch it, it is both their free will and your planning which lead them to catch the ball. Of course, that is a rather pitiful example when compared to the story of mankind, but it illustrates the same basic points. Anyway, thank you for taking the time to read this thread. I would really appreciate any feedback you have to offer.

 

[beameup]

Are freewill and predestination opposite sides of the "same coin"?

 

[Tambora]

Are freewill and predestination opposite sides of the "same coin"?

Freewill is sorta a contradiction in term.
To have "will" is to be able to make a choice, albeit those choices are only in the realm of your capabilities (for instance: one cannot choose to fly because that is not within the realm of your capabilities).

So, the argument is really not about "freewill", but about one's capabilities.

I reject the Calvinism view that some men are not capable of hearing, believing, and trusting in GOD's word.
I believe that it is within the capability of all men.



And you can predestine an outcome without knowing the exact ones that will comply.
I can present an open invitation for the whole town to attend my birthday party.
And I can predestine that all that come will receive a free piece of cake.
I don't have to know the individual names of those that will come in order to predestine.

 

[nototter]

Your points are very interesting and I appreciate your feedback. However, I believe that your cake theory is from the human perspective, which views time as linear. Theoretically, if God is not only everywhere present, but "everywhen" present, then time is not a straight line, so much as a plane or even an orb. In this case, from His perspective, it is possible that a person who "will eat the cake", is also "currently eating the cake", and "has eaten the cake" all at the same time. If someone could view time from this perspective, they would both offer the cake to everyone andknow the names of the people who were going to eat it, because they would have already seen the cake get eaten and they are currently watching it being eaten.That's not to say say that certain individuals couldn't have eaten the cake, but that they wouldn't have eaten the cake, and that this choice could have been mathematically determined beforehand. This could account for the use of different tenses in verses like Isaiah 65:24. I suppose this is more of a theoretical physics discussion than a theological one, but I don't see why those two subjects can't overlap. Anyway, as I said before, I really don't get much of a chance to discuss these things, and I am grateful to hear what others believe on the subject. I'm certainly not trying to argue, but to have honest discourse. Thanks for replying!

 

[Tambora]

Your points are very interesting and I appreciate your feedback. However, I believe that your cake theory is from the human perspective, which views time as linear. Theoretically, if God is not only everywhere present, but "everywhen" present, then time is not a straight line, so much as a plane or even an orb. In this case, from His perspective, it is possible that a person who "will eat the cake", is also "currently eating the cake", and "has eaten the cake" all at the same time. If someone could view time from this perspective, they would both offer the cake to everyone andknow the names of the people who were going to eat it, because they would have already seen the cake get eaten and they are currently watching it being eaten.That's not to say say that certain individuals couldn't have eaten the cake, but that they wouldn't have eaten the cake, and that this choice could have been mathematically determined beforehand. This could account for the use of different tenses in verses like Isaiah 65:24. I suppose this is more of a theoretical physics discussion than a theological one, but I don't see why those two subjects can't overlap. Anyway, as I said before, I really don't get much of a chance to discuss these things, and I am grateful to hear what others believe on the subject. I'm certainly not trying to argue, but to have honest discourse. Thanks for replying!

In creation time is linear.
Time is just the measurement between two points on that linear line.
From creation, day follows night (they do not happen together).

Time doesn't change GOD, but it does change creation.
Any changes in creation are linear and can only be viewed as linear.


To say that GOD already knows what will happen is to say GOD has already experienced all that ever happens.
And if GOD has already experienced it, then it already happened, and there is no predestination at all, but just a recall of something that already happened.
In other words, you cannot predestine something that has already happened.

 

[beameup]

Declaring the end from the beginning,
and from ancient times the things that are not yet done,
saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
Isaiah 46:10

"reverse engineering"

 

[glorydaz]

That reminds me of something I heard years ago. When we get to heaven, we see before us a door which says, "Enter for eternal life." When we pass through the door, we turn around and read this written over the top of the door, "Chosen from the beginning." I think it depends on which side of the door we're talking about at the time. Calvinists concentrate on the latter sign, while Armenians concentrate on the former sign. I actually think we're closer than most can admit.

It's the same with time. In many ways, it's circular (like the seasons), or like a box instead of a drawing of a box.

So, I don't know, but I like this thread.

 

[nototter]

This will once again, emphasize how new I am to this forum, but I have no idea how to thank people. I have enjoyed this discussion very much and would like to thank each of you who participated

 

[nototter]

I agree with Tambora that, from creation, we have experienced time in a linear fashion, but there is significant evidence that time (like all energy) radiates outwards, rather than forwards, which means that it has more than one axis. There have, for instance, been some very recent discoveries in gravity waves that support this theory. Your point on whether having experienced something means you cannot possibly predestine it is a very compelling one, and it is one I will have to look into further. I never meant to imply that these events were unchangeable to God, only that, from our linear perspective, they could be considered as being planned ahead of time, because we do not likely experience time in the same way that He does.

 

[Crucible]

Could Calvinism and Arminianism both be correct?

No, because Arminianism attempts to hold unto a Catholic worldview while simultaneously going against the very nature of a Catholic worldview.
It's entirely wishful thinking produced from counter-Reformists.

When free will is the driving force of divine providence, you inevitably need feudalism to make sense of it. The semi-Pelagian world of Catholicism saw to it that popes and kings dictated, and what they dictated was the will of God.
You see, because there still has to be some measure of control, so they figured a much convenient 'top down' approach.

This is a large part of why original Protestant theology was so effective against the Roman Church. Jacob Arminius, however, was merely a student of John Calvin, who he later protested. He unfortunately ran off with heresy hat was enticing enough for others to be duped into, namely the Anglicans who didn't want to remain Catholic but nevertheless didn't know much outside of semi-Pelagian belief.

 

[Wick Stick]

I don't think they can both be right, since they are mutually exclusive. However, I think they can both be wrong. In fact, I think that is likely the case.

 

[Crucible]

Free will vs predestination is not what most people think it is. If you look at any theological book, or literature that expounds on the history thereof, you will learn that it's not so black and white.

Calvinism does not altogether reject free will, which is something virtually everyone on this site opposed to Calvinism seems to think. Calvinist belief rather builds upon and emphasizes predestination- it's theology is based on an immutable sovereignty of God, in which He predetermined how He would conduct His will as mankind turned out the way it would.

Both Calvinism and Arminianism share a particular doctrine called 'Total Depravity', which means that man's will is irreparably flawed without the assistance of God.
But that's where the similarity ends. The difference between Arminianism and Calvinism has a whole lot more to do with justification, or what what merits salvation, than whether God is or isn't 'just'. That's just new age nonsense by people who simply don't want to admit how liberal they've become in their philosophy.

 

[Clete]

I know that the title for this post sounds a bit absurd (and possibly even post-modern), but please bear with me. I don't know anyone who really enjoys challenging theological discussions, and I figured that this might be a good place to vent a theory that has been buzzing around in my brain for the past few years.

While it is widely regarded Calvinism and Arminianism consist of five points, its seems that the first point of each encompasses the other four points, that is, the debate is chiefly between the theory of predestination and the theory of free will. I do not believe those two points are mutually exclusive. In fact, I believe they may be co-dependent. Allow me to explain-

I have noticed two things about humans: our character is defined by our actions, and our actions are defined by our character. When we trace this pattern back to it's origin, we find that the only real variable in the life of each individual is their starting point in relation to the starting points of each other individual. Holding that God is Omnipresent- not merely in space, but in time (assuming, of course, that time is non-linear)- and Omnipotent, then He could easily arrange these starting points to his liking (Calvinism). From that point, if we make all of our choices of our own free-will (Arminianism), our paths both as individuals and as a species could be thoroughly mapped from beginning to end. In this scenario, humans are fully responsible for their own actions and those actions were predestined.

Say, for example, you toss a football to a friend knowing that they will catch it. When they do catch it, it is both their free will and your planning which lead them to catch the ball. Of course, that is a rather pitiful example when compared to the story of mankind, but it illustrates the same basic points. Anyway, thank you for taking the time to read this thread. I would really appreciate any feedback you have to offer.

The sort of foreknowledge you describe in the final paragraph is not at all the sort taught by either Calvinism or Arminianism. In fact, it isn't even foreknowledge at all because when you get right down to it, you do not KNOW with certainty that your friend will in fact catch the ball. You expect that he will do so and you can make a very reliable prediction that he will catch the ball but you do not know that he will catch it. Your hypothetical comes much closer to Open Theism than it does anything else, Calvinism in particular.

As for whether the two philosophies are logically compatible, the answer is simply, no. They really truly are not at all compatible. You will be forced to modify one or the other (or both) to a point that it is no longer the thing you started with. Further, the two concepts (foreknowledge (or predestination) and Free will) are simply not rationally compatible with eachother in any case. They are, in fact, mutually exclusive.

Here's a formal argument that demonstrates why....

T = You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am

1. Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
2. If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
3. It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
4. Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
5. If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
6. So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
7. If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
8. Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
9. If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
10. Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

I agree with Tambora that, from creation, we have experienced time in a linear fashion, but there is significant evidence that time (like all energy) radiates outwards, rather than forwards, which means that it has more than one axis. There have, for instance, been some very recent discoveries in gravity waves that support this theory. Your point on whether having experienced something means you cannot possibly predestine it is a very compelling one, and it is one I will have to look into further. I never meant to imply that these events were unchangeable to God, only that, from our linear perspective, they could be considered as being planned ahead of time, because we do not likely experience time in the same way that He does.

Time is an idea, not an ontological thing like a planet or star or river or car or dirt or whatever. It's an idea and nothing more than that. Time is a convension of language used to communicate information concerning the duration and sequence of events relative to other events. It is not possible to discuss ontological time without contradicting yourself. It is irrational.

I encourage you to take a look at these two threads....

Proof from the Bible that God is In Time

Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

 

[Clete]

Freewill is sorta a contradiction in term.
To have "will" is to be able to make a choice, albeit those choices are only in the realm of your capabilities (for instance: one cannot choose to fly because that is not within the realm of your capabilities).

It's not so much a contradiction as it is a redundancy. You either have a will or you don't. Which, as you point out, is merely the capability of making a choice. Thus, a will that is not free to choose is no will at all.

 

[Tambora]

It's not so much a contradiction as it is a redundancy. You either have a will or you don't. Which, as you point out, is merely the capability of making a choice. Thus, a will that is not free to choose is no will at all.

Yeppers.

 

[serpentdove]

I know that the title for this post sounds a bit absurd (and possibly even post-modern)...

Not at all.

I'm as Calvinistic as the bible is. I'm as Arminian as the bible is (Winfrey). oly: 2 Ti 2:15

 

[Tambora]

Your point on whether having experienced something means you cannot possibly predestine it is a very compelling one, and it is one I will have to look into further.

I welcome any thoughts you come up with.

 

[Tambora]

It's the same with time. In many ways, it's circular (like the seasons), or like a box instead of a drawing of a box.

Even with those (circle or box), there is always a before and after point.
Anywhere there is a before and after, you have time of one point occurring before another.
Right?

 

[ttruscott]

Could they both be more wrong?

1.
They both accept that GOD knew before HE created them who would end in hell BUT CREATED THEM ANYWAY! A definition of omniscience is accepted even though it is disputed by Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. and blasphemes HIS Name of loving, righteous holiness. Crime-eny!

2.
They also both accept the blasphemy that HE creates evil and evil people by making them humans in Adam inheriting his sinfulness when He didn't have to do so (HE didn't make Adam and Eve sinful, did HE? Only you and me...) and against all goodness and logic that HE was creating HIS future Bride by first putting her into Adam's sin and making her twisted and horrible and evil and sick unto corruption!

Riiiiight, the only person fit to be His bride is one who has first been as corrupt as the most evil demon and caused great suffering for those they love and then brought to holiness?