Calvinism vs. Arminianism

Steve Wulf asked for my views on this. Although my own theology leans in the Reformed direction, I'm not a Calvinist. And I spend almost no time thinking about the speculative formulation of doctrine, such as "limited atonement" and the like. Indeed, I think that speculation is what makes me part way with both Arminians and Calvinists. I sympathize with the biblical concerns of both Calvinists and Arminians. I just can't follow the trajectory of their arguments when they begin to trample on other equally biblical concerns.

Arminians begin with the holy love of God. That's a great biblical starting point. But then speculative arguments of the "if... then" sort come up against texts that impinge on their concept of how that could play out, so they become problem texts. The strong Pauline language of Paul in Romans gets problematic for Arminians. Indeed, I somethings think that the opponents Paul was arguing with were Arminians. They apparently keep saying things to which Paul has to respond, "God forbid!" (KJV). If a Calvinist argued like Paul did in Romans 5, an Arminian would likely object, "That would mean would should go on sinning so that grace would increase" (cf. Rom 6:1-2). If the Calvinist argued like Paul does in Romans 6:3-14), the Arminian would likely say, "Well then we might as well sin, with that understanding of grace" (cf. Rom 6:15). If a Calvinist argues for election like Paul does in Romans 9, the Arminian is likely to respond, "That's not just," to which Paul responds, "Not at all.... Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" And then Paul gets really "Calvinistic" (Rom 9:10ff). Any theology that feels compelled to treat Romans 9 as a problem text--or to water it down until it no longer means what it plainly says--is problematic. "'If...' God did that 'then...' that's fatalism, or it would be my fault." So I tend to find Arminian commentary on Romans either nonsensical or insubstantial. Or maybe it even quits just before Romans 9 and draws its own conclusions from Romans 1-8 rather than the canonical conclusions.

Calvinists begin with the sovereign justice of God. That's great biblical starting point. But then speculative arguments of the "if... then" sort come up against texts that impinge on their concept of how that could play, so they become problem texts. Texts that describe salvation as conditional on our confession, repentance, and continuation in faith become problems, instead of key texts in understanding the relationship between sovereign election and human responsibility. The book of Hebrews warning against apostasy becomes a nonsense warning against something that could never happen, because of the eternal security of the elect. And so forth.

I prefer to worry Arminians with my Reformed tendencies to talk much about the sovereign grace of God. And then I like to worry Calvinists about my dangerous incipient Arminian tendencies to lean heavily on human accountability before GodSteve Wulf asked about my thoughts on this.