Calvinism vs. Armenianism, Part I
A recent conversation on the predestination of salvation got me started thinking about this. Well, more generally, about the whole Calvinism versus Armenianism debate. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, those are two schools of Christian thought, both of which came about in the 16th Century.
Just a warning: This isn’t really one of my fun posts. I’m doing some real soul-searching here, so you get bonus points if you stick with me.
Here’s a primer on each of them (taken from the Wikipedia articles):
Calvinism
- As a consequence of man’s fall into sin, every person is born enslaved to the service of sin.
- God’s choice from eternity of those whom he will bring to himself is not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God’s mercy alone.
- Jesus’ atonement of sin was definite and certain in its design and accomplishment. It would be unjust for God to pay the penalty for some people’s sins and then still condemn them for those sins, all those whose sins were atoned for must necessarily be saved. Moreover, since in this scheme God knows precisely who the elect are and since only the elect will be saved, there is no requirement that Christ atone for sins in general, only for those of the elect.
- The saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (that is, the elect) and, in God’s timing, overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith. So if He wants you to be saved, you will be saved.
- Since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end. Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with or will return.
Armenianism
- Humans are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation.
- Salvation is possible only by God’s grace, which cannot be merited.
- No works of human effort can cause or contribute to salvation.
- God’s election is conditional on faith in the sacrifice and Lordship of Jesus Christ.
- Christ’s atonement was made on behalf of all people.
- God allows his grace to be resisted by those who freely reject Christ.
- Believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace through persistent, unrepented-of sin.
I’ve considered myself an Armenian for my entire adult life, which I think actually led me to my interest in Existentialism. Armenianism seems a natural fit with Existentialism, with the focus on individual choice and the rejection of essence before existence. Also, Armenianism seems to mesh more with what I believe to be God’s character. So I know what I believe. But, if I’m going to call myself a Christian, I need to go back to the source documents (the Bible) and check my beliefs against that, which is something I haven’t done extensively in this manner.
It’s not that I reject Calvinism in its entirety. For instance, the concept of total depravity (the first bullet point under Calvinism above) has a very valid place in many Christian schools of thought. I think total depravity is a gateway drug into Calvinism, actually, but that’s a thought for another time. Anyway, I don’t think either school gets it entirely wrong (or, most likely, entirely right either).
I’m going to be making a few posts over the next few days examining each of these. I know I have some smart friends out there who have given this far more thought than I have, and I also know I have some very smart friends who may not have given it critical thought but still have opinions on it. I’d like to hear from all of you. I realize this is opening up my blog to the flame wars that have been ensuing since the 16th Century, but it’ll help me discern the truth here, so I welcome all of it.
July 15th, 2009 at 4:26 am
I thought you had to be Armenian by birth or naturalization…
If you’re ever interested, I spilled a great deal of ink (virtually speaking) a while back on the logical incoherence of the 5 Points (so-called) of Calvinism, and I’m sure that if I actually went back and re-read what I wrote I would scoff at myself for such abject pretension.
July 15th, 2009 at 4:33 am
on a more serious note, I think there are merits to the understanding of total depravity, although I would tend to view it in a different manner than most of my calvinist friends. I think the more historic approach to inherited depravity (if one wants to call it that) makes more sense, seeing sinfulness not as something that is super-added to human nature (as sin, being privation, does not have positive ontology) but rather the lack of righteousness brought about by being in union with God and God’s grace.
Such an approach I feel more neatly summarizes the existential question (why we are all so screwed up naturally and also why we are not all as screwed up as we could be) as well as the theological question of how we are in that position in the first place.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
I’m more of the Armenian school of thought overall, although I don’t completely reject all of Calvinism. Ironically, the more involved I’ve gotten in church activities and leadership roles over the past several years, the more I think total depravity might not be completely off the mark. I swear I never inhaled, though. Ha.
I’m too tired to get into the details of that right now (already past my bedtime!), but I will say that, on the flip side, I don’t buy into Wesley’s ideal of Sinless Perfectionism. It’s a nice theory and all, but I don’t think so. Even the most kind, loving, and faithful Christians I know are completely capable of being hurtful and unloving, and at least have moments of imperfection (whereas I have mastered the art of nonstop imperfection, but I’m no saint).
July 16th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Well, the thing to keep in mind is that Calvinism and Arminianism aren’t entirely opposite. They both hold to belief in total depravity (meaning, all humans are completely incapable of righteousness on their own); they both believe humans can’t do anything to earn or deserve salvation. Their main difference is in their views on predestination vs. free will. Calvinism is easier to stomach if you believe in an omniscient, omnipotent God who determines the course of the universe for all eternity. Arminianism is easier to stomach if you don’t think God is a favorites-playing asshole. These are broad generalities, but not too far off the mark.
July 16th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Yeah, I’m a big fan of God not being an asshole.
But seriously, that’s the foundational belief, but there are a lot of implications that go along with that. It’s like, creationists and evolutionists disagree essentially on one thing, but that one thing makes a world of difference in every other area of life. I don’t think the differences between Armenianism and Calvinism are quite as extreme, but there’s a lot more to it than is readily apparent.
I haven’t gotten around to writing more on this because I’ve been dealing with some website emergencies over at Cakes by Combs, and also, I just got a new television (yay consumerism!). More tomorrow night, most likely.
July 16th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Arminianism is easier to stomach if you don’t think God is a favorites-playing asshole.
LMAO. Excellent synopsis.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
I think that the similarity in belief regarding total depravity between Calvinism and Arminianism is only in appearance. All orthodox Christian theologies affirm that humans are incapable of righteousness apart from God. However, while Calvinism (generically speaking) would certainly affirm that humans are incapable of righteousness on their own, most strains of calvinism I have encountered would go quite a bit further and assert that not only are humans incapable of righteousness on their own, but that humans are also ‘made entirely opposite to all good and wholly inclined to all evil.’ (from the westminster confession, which most calvinists I have met would agree with) Arminianism in its many strains generally does not place such a positive emphasis on sin and instead considers its negative consequences.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:09 am
@Brandon: Yeah, I definitely get what you’re saying about the nuances in doctrine having broader implications. That’s why there are so many Protestant denominations, after all.
I’m looking forward to seeing the rest of your posts about this. (If you need a refresher on Calvinism beyond Wikipedia, by the way, crack open a Norton anthology and skim some of the early Puritan lit. They were all Calvinists, though some were bigger jerks about being part of “the elect” than others.)
@deviantmonk: Interesting point about the Calvinist vs. Arminian approaches to sin and depravity. I haven’t studied theology extensively, so I wasn’t aware of the finer details of their viewpoints. (Though isn’t the Calvinist view of humans being “wholly inclined to all evil” mitigated somewhat by the notion of common grace? Or am I misunderstanding the concept?) I brought up their relative harmony on the doctrine of total depravity because Arminianism is so often wrongly linked to Pelagianism (or “We are not really all that evil”-ism), mostly because many Calvinists have huge issues with the notion that someone could be inclined towards salvation on his/her own, grace notwithstanding. I just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page regarding Arminianism’s orthodoxy vs. Pelagianism’s heterodoxy, traditionally speaking.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:01 am
Mina-
I don’t think you’re misunderstanding common grace at all- I think I just categorize it differently. Common grace (for those Calvinists I’ve met who do actually affirm it, as there are some who do not) is more of an extrinsic thing; that is, something that operates upon humans rather than something proper to them, total depravity would be. I think that is why I would categorize them differently. I’ve always felt this ‘mitigation’ is a rather artificial concept, for as common grace includes the restraint of sin, under that category even death would be an example of common grace as it restrains sin from being as rampant as it could be. The difficulty that Calvinism has always faced is the pesky reality that there have been and are rather righteous pagans and that even regular people are capable of what would normally be considered good things despite their complete depravity. Of course, some Calvinistic systems (as the westminister confession bears witness) are left little theological room than to posit depravity even of good works; rendering the moral quality of an action dependent upon its subject rather than the act itself.
As for having an inclination towards salvation- actually, to posit that one may have an inclination towards salvation notwithstanding grace is a heterodox position. (See the Council of Orange, Cannon 5 viz-a-viz the Semi-Pelagian controversy.) I think, however, that both Arminianism and Calvinism would agree with that ultimately; the crux for Arminianism is the idea that God actually desires the salvation of all people and thus would give grace to all all people to come to him. I agree, however, that those who conflate Arminianism and pelagianism are mistaken.
July 17th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Eeep, sorry, I should have been more clear in what I meant about a person being inclined toward salvation. (This is what happens when I try to talk theology late at night.) Your definition of prevenient grace is what I was trying to get at but didn’t quite manage–the idea that by grace, all humanity has the opportunity to choose faith, but only because of the grace bestowed by God and not anything inherent to humanity. Phew. There we go.
I have to confess, in my religious days I tended to secretly lean towards Semipelagianism. While I never thought humanity (or an individual human) could attain blamelessness, or effect salvation through works, I thought Justin Martyr had a point when he argued that the doctrine of total depravity lets people off the hook for their moral failings. (E.g., “I know what I’m doing is wrong, but I can’t help it, it’s just my sinful nature.”) And I still think Pelagius is right when he argues that the doctrine of original sin isn’t too far removed from gnosticism. Yes, yes, I know, it’s been a heterodox view for centuries but I’m not convinced it’s entirely wrong.
July 20th, 2009 at 3:38 am
Mina- re: original sin being not too far removed from Gnosticism- do you know where I could find that particular argument of Pelagius? I’m curious what form of Gnosticism he may have been referring to. (perhaps Manichaenism as a subtle jab at Augustine’s youth?) It seems to me that the idea original sin (I guess depending on how one defines it) would be one of the furthest things removed from Gnosticism, as Gnostics would tend to posit the goodness of the soul in contrast to the sinful state of the body viz-a-viz the former’s eternal nature and inability to be impugned by the lower sensual nature. Of course, Gnosticism comes in many flavors, so I guess it would depend on which one Pelagius had in mind.
Re: Justin Martyr’s comment- Is that in his dialogue with Trypho or his apology? I can’t remember…it’s been a while since I’ve read either. I would agree that TD is often misconstrued as a kind of ‘Oops, I did it again’ excuse; however, I think the difficulty I have with TD is that as a foundational element of Calvinism’s theology it that by placing total depravity within the moral sphere it seems to examine the symptoms rather than the root cause of humanity’s estrangement from God. As Athanasius will argue, the problem is not simply that we do bad things, but that we are not in union with God. Thus, the problem is fundamentally ontological and expresses itself morally as a consequence. As such, it seems to me that whether we do bad things or not as much as we could or not is merely symptomatic of the greater malady.
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Surprise, your Grandmother has an opinion. I believe God created everyone. God sees only perfection, in fact that is why He can create. God does not judge, and God is lonely without us as we are lonely without God.
We are free to align our thoughts with God’s Thoughts whenever we choose. WE are eternal beings and eventually we will all return to God. We are not bodies, we are as God created us (Spirit Form) God wants us to be happy and peaceful. Because of the separation we cannot directly communicate with God, but we can communicate and probably do with the Holy Spirit or Jesus. I do not criticize religions nor I do not embrace them. Man made religions cannot be as pure as the messages we receive from the Holy Spirit. I do appreciate and agree with the teachings of Jesus, but I know there have been many mistakes made in interpreting His teachings. I do not defend my beliefs. I read the Lamsa Bible and am an avid student of the Course in Miracles which to me is the most advanced teachings we can read today. Again it may not be for everyone. The main thing I believe is that everyone is my sister and brother and we are all creations of God.
August 3rd, 2009 at 5:31 am
Grandmother Clay- thank you for your thoughts. I have a few follow-up questions for you.
You state that ‘God creates everyone.’ Your next phrase is then that ‘God sees only perfection, in fact that is why he can create.’ These, two statements, I am afraid, mutually contradictory. If God can see only perfection, then at the ‘time’, so to speak, at which nothing or no one other than God created existed God would have seen perfection in that lack of existence. Thus, if God’s seeing only perfection is the criterion for God’s ability to create, God would not have created as God would have seen perfection in non-existence of anything or anyone other than God.
Secondly, if, as you state, God is lonely without us, how, before God created us, could God have seen perfection? Surely not being lonely is more perfect than being lonely, and thus God could not have seen perfection in Godself before creation, which would necessitate, according to the logic you have advanced, that God would have had to create to be able to see perfection, which is a complete inversion of the logic you have advanced, thus showing your argument inherently self-contradictory.
Thirdly, if we are ‘eternal’ beings, how precisely does that square with your previous statement that God ‘created’ everyone? An eternal being has no beginning or end, yet the point of being created clearly constitutes a beginning.
Fourthly, if we are not bodies, what precisely are we? If we are simply spirit form, what precisely do you make of the very bodily reality that we exist in? Do you consider it illusory, a prison or something else? Perhaps a more pertinent question is why you would attempt to communicate anything by means of something that is not yourself, and why anyone would place any value or substance in communication mediated in such a manner.
You state that we are separated and cannot communicate directly with God. What, in your view, is the reason for this separation? And if we can communicate with Jesus or the Holy Spirit, what types of being specifically are they?
Lastly, you state that you do not criticize religions, yet you immediately contradict yourself by stating that man-made religions have made many mistakes in interpreting Jesus, which of course is a rather blatant criticism. If you do not defend your beliefs, what possible reason do you have for holding them? Also, you say you agree with the teachings of Jesus. Which teachings, precisely, do you agree with, and which teachings do you think have been misinterpreted?