Thread: Calvinism, Arminianism and Eternal Security......
Admin
Calvinism, Arminianism and Eternal Security......
Posted : 23 Dec, 2011 09:22 AM
Calvinism, Arminianism, and Eternal Security
By Matt Perman
From Yet Another Reformed Resource
http://www.geocities.com/y_a_r_r/index.htm
Calvinism teaches that freedom is "the ability to act according to your desires." Furthermore, it teaches that the will "always chooses according to its greatest desire." For example, if I have a choice between eating a steak or eating chopped liver, I will always choose the steak because I desire it most. In fact, it could be said that I was unable to choose the liver since I did not want the liver. If you have no desire for something, you simply will not choose it.
Arminianism teaches that freedom is the ability to have chosen other than you did. For example, on the Arminian view I did not make a free choice in choosing the steak. Why? Because my choice was determined by something -- my greatest desire. They say that unless I was able to choose the liver over the steak, I was not acting freely when I chose the steak.
Calvinists are not troubled by the fact that I "could not have done otherwise." They point to a distinction between natural ability to do otherwise and moral ability to do otherwise. They believe that responsibility (and thus freedom) rest upon natural ability to do otherwise, but not moral ability to do otherwise.
Natural ability to do otherwise means that there are no physical constraints forcing one to act. It means that if one wants to do otherwise, he can. If natural ability is taken away, responsiblity goes as well. For example, if my teacher commands me to fly like a bird to Canada, he cannot hold me accountable for not doing it because I do not have the physical capability to do so.
Moral inability simply means that you will not choose what you do not want to choose. It does not mean that you could not chose it if you wanted it. It means that you cannot choose it because you have no desire for it. Moral inability, therefore, does not remove
accountability. For example, if my teacher commands me to do an assignment, my lack of moral ability would mean I have no desire to do the assignment. Let's say I have a greater desire to watch T.V. than do the assigment. Obviously, I could do it if I wanted to, but I simply do not want to. Clearly, my desire to watch T.V. being greater than my desire to obey my teacher would not remove my moral accountability.
In the steak example, I made a free choice on the Calvinist view because I had the natural ability to choose the liver if I had wanted to choose the liver. Nothing outside of myself was forcing me to choose the steak. I was not physically prevented from eating liver. Since I had the physical capability to choose the liver, I made a real choice. My inability to choose the liver was a moral inability, not a natural inability. When I say I was unable to choose the liver, I mean that I could not bring myself to choose the liver because I had no desire for the liver.
Which view of freedom does the Bible teach? The Calvinist or the Arminian? A quick look at the biblical teaching of eternal security reveals that the Calvinist view is correct.
Once a person comes to Christ, he cannot loose his salvation (John 10:26-30). He is eternally saved and will go to heaven when he dies. It is not possible for him to be lost. This is a big problem for the Arminian view of freedom. If it is not possible for a person to loose his salvation, then there are two options:
1. It is possible for the believer to later on reject Christ and reject eternal life, but God will still take him to heaven when he dies even though he has rejected it.
2. It is not possible for a believer to ever reject Christ and eternal life once he is saved.
Under option one, clearly the person's will is violated. For the person would be rejecting Christ but God would be taking him to heaven anyway. He would be saving the person against his will. This would obviously be inconsistent with both the Arminian view of freedom and the Bible.
So we must conclude that a true Christian will never utterly reject Christ and heaven. But if it is not possible for a person to reject Christ, then the person cannot do other than continue believing. This is another problem for the Arminian view - - on the Arminian view, the minute that you cannot do otherwise, you are not free. Thus, eternal security is inconsistent with the Arminian view of freedom.
The Arminian may respond "the person will never reject Christ because they don't want to reject Christ. They are freely continuing to believe because they want to continue believing. They cannot reject Christ because they do not want to." But isn't that the Calvinist view of freedom? It certainly isn't the Arminian view because the person cannot do otherwise than continue believing. Thus, the Arminian view defeats itself and folds into Calvinism.
The issue is, why can't the person do otherwise than continue believing? The Calvinist answers that as long as the reason is that he wants to continue believing, it is a genuine choice, even though it can't be otherwise.
The Biblical teaching of eternal security clearly teaches the Calvinist view of freedom--the person cannot reject eternal life once they are saved because they do not want to reject eternal life. God causes us to continue wanting to believe in Him once we are saved -- Jeremiah 32:40; Ezekiel 36:27.
For those who do not believe in eternal security, my argument need not change much. In heaven we will no longer sin or reject Christ. So, it is not possible for a saint in heaven to reject God. This leads to the same dilemna as eternal security, unless one accepts the Calvinist view of freedom.
What implications does this have? While there are many, a central one is that this reveals that God is able to determine who will be saved without violating our wills or forcing us to believe. If a person is elect, God does not force him to believe but neither does He leave open the possibility that he will use his will to reject Him and overthrow His plan. For if God prepares his heart and gives him a desire for Christ that is greater than his desire to remain in sin, the person will most certainly come--and will come
freely.
Perhaps the implications for salvation can be summed up most clearly like this: If God is able, after we have been saved, to keep us believing in Christ without violating our freedom, why can't He, before we are saved, cause us to believe in Christ in order to
become saved--without violating our wills? In light of what we have seen, it seems clear that He can.
I t is not a question whether he can or not, he has already done all he is going to do, man has never lost his ability to believe, it is simply man chososing or rejecting him.
*** GezzzzzzzLouezzzzz...:rolleyes:...Its the Christmas Season and here we All get to read more POOOOOoooooo about Calvin & Armin two DEAD Dudes that have NO Business Getting Top Bill in the Forums on the Most Momentus Celebrated EVENT in ALL OF HISTORY...the Birth of CHRIST :angel: JESUS* who came into the world to Save SINNERS...wouldnt it be More GOODER to Bury the DANG Hatchet in the YULE Log and get into the Wedding Feast...:prayingf:...xo
Well, Jude since it is almost Christmas maybe you won't mind me quoting Jesus.............
John 10:26-30
English Standard Version (ESV)
26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me,[a] is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one.�
James shared ~ Well, Jude since it is almost Christmas maybe you won't mind me quoting Jesus.............
John 10:26-30 English Standard Version (ESV)
26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me,[a] is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one.�
In Christ,James
*** I never mind and always appreciate everyone quoting Christ Jesus*...I just dont care much for the Dis-Regard of Jesus* Word being Tossed about ina Spiteful Acussing MANNER such as this...:toomuch:...Its Obvious what Spirt you are filled with this Season...and Donna...I thought your MaMa taught you better than that...guess I was wrong...and the BOTH of you are to...Hava Merry :party: and Blessed :purpleangel: Christmas with a Happy New Year :dancingp: and a GOD HOLY SPIRT Filled day...xo
So Jude, I am wrong for posting the article after someone posted an article saying you can lose your salvation, and THEN I am wrong for quoting Jesus in John 6.?
James, it might be a better analagy (if we are to use food ) and closer to the truth if you said that if someone is given the choice between steak and liver but they have never had steak they have been told steak is tuff and hard to chew but they have been eating liver their whole life and they kinda like liver its tender and if you put gravy on it its pretty good, they dont know anything about steak some say its good if you can chew it and if itas not over cooked so they arent sure!
THATS CLOSER TO THE TRUTH , becsue a non believer doesnt know how good the Lord is! so how could they know it would be better or thats wht they would prefer??
