Calvinism vs. Arminianism Resources

Hi everyone,

I am looking to add to my library resources that cover the above topic in my subject line. Over the last 7 months or so I have read various texts and systematic theologies trying to piece together the arguments for and against Calvinism and Arminianism. Sadly, I have not been able to come across any arguments that provide satisfactory exegetical evidence as to what position is more likely to be true.

I'm particularly interested in a text that clearly outlines Calvinism and Arminianism doctrine, where they differ and a thorough (and objective?) analysis of the biblical texts used to support their positions. In the event that there is a disagreement, show why and provide a 'correction' on their proof text(s).

Am I being too pedantic here? I just find this topic exceptionally confusing and I am surprised how hard it is to find a text that covers this topic without straw manning the other position.

Please recommend resources not in Logos too.

Thanks.

Find more posts tagged with

Reformed Products

Comments

Daniel Yoder

I recommend that you consider these two books.

https://www.logos.com/product/26686/for-calvinism-and-against-calvinism

Doc B

I have not been able to come across any arguments that provide satisfactory exegetical evidence as to what position is more likely to be true.

And you won't. If a single conclusion was easy, we wouldn't have two (huge, convinced) camps.

The two resources Daniel recommended are an excellent start. They are very recent, and the two authors do a good job of communicating what their position is, rather than what the other guys' position is (though there's a little of that anyway). Mike Horton is excellent, if a bit verbose at times. Roger Olsen is a true Arminian, and willing to call himself that, unlike many of his colleagues. (FD: I do have Horton's book, but I don't have, nor have I read, Olsen's book.)

If you want a ground-level explanation of Calvinism, I highly recommend this- https://www.logos.com/product/43702/what-is-reformed-theology-understanding-the-basics

Logos has both The Institutes of the Christian Religion and a couple of sets of Arminius' work. Perhaps those would be good places to start.

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749734#Comment_749734

I recommend that you consider these two books.

https://www.logos.com/product/26686/for-calvinism-and-against-calvinism

I agree with this. Personally I found reading both of these books one after the other very helpful. I highly recommend them.

Into Grace

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749737#Comment_749737

In my opinion, the best source for Reformed Theology are reading works from those who hold this theology. The same goes for Arminianism. This is because intentional or not, they may misrepresent the other side.

The truth is found in careful study over time in the Word of God. The truth is NOT found in a theological system.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749753#Comment_749753

Additionally if you think there are only two positions you'd be mistaken.

There are at least a score of different camps that consider themselves to be more or less "calvinistic" or reformed.

Amyraldians for instance will sometimes say they are calvinist, sometimes they say they aren't. sometimes they say they are mostly calvinist. Limited atonement is their sticking point, and will sometimes cause them to reject the big C label all together even though they are 80% Calvinistic in their soteriology.

Dave L

I attended a class taught by a THD who held to the four point Calvinist position. I was an Arminian at the time. Once I heard the Calvinistic Doctrines of sin and grace and especially an accurate presentation of "Limited Atonement" the scales fell from my eyes, so to speak.

Even though the professor skilfully taught against "Limited Atonement" and tried to refute it, I became a Five Point Calvinist then and there.

This is my favorite book on the subject and the one he used in an attempt to state and refute "Limited Atonement". Today I realize Calvinistic Sin and Grace and Arminian Sin and Grace represent two totally different Saviors.

https://www.logos.com/product/9523/the-five-points-of-calvinism-defined-defended-and-documented

John Kight

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749753#Comment_749753

In my opinion, the best source for Reformed Theology are reading works from those who hold this theology. The same goes for Arminianism. This is because intentional or not, they may misrepresent the other side.

Unfortunately, I have also run into those who claim to "hold X theology" and ironically misrepresent X theology.

John Kight

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749753#Comment_749753

In my opinion, the best source for Reformed Theology are reading works from those who hold this theology. The same goes for Arminianism. This is because intentional or not, they may misrepresent the other side.

Unfortunately, I have also run into those who claim to "hold X theology" and ironically misrepresent X theology.

Liam

Hey James, I found Wayne Grudem's systematic theology extremely helpful. Also John Piper's book The Justification of God is a detailed exegetical work on Romans 9. To contrast this you could read Arminius' own exposition on Romans 9.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749802#Comment_749802

I attended a class taught by a THD who held to the four point Calvinist position. I was an Arminian at the time. Once I heard the Calvinistic Doctrines of sin and grace and especially an accurate presentation of "Limited Atonement" the scales fell from my eyes, so to speak.

Even though the professor skilfully taught against "Limited Atonement" and tried to refute it, I became a Five Point Calvinist then and there.

This is my favorite book on the subject and the one he used in an attempt to state and refute "Limited Atonement". Today I realize Calvinistic Sin and Grace and Arminian Sin and Grace represent two totally different Saviors.

https://www.logos.com/product/9523/the-five-points-of-calvinism-defined-defended-and-documented

I went to a C&MA (arminian) school as an undergraduate, and am presently calvinist. My transition wasn't as clean perhaps as yours, but I ended up here any way.

(‾◡◝)

James,

You are correct that there are a lot of misrepresentations of the positions and it is hard to find a single text that will fairly or accurately outline the opponents' argument. In addition, one must also realize neither Calvinism nor Arminianism is a monolithic set of beliefs. There are many variations of belief/doctrine within each camp. Some are glaring some are very subtle. All of which makes trying to sort the wheat from the chaff quite challenging (humanly speaking).

When I made the jump from a default Arminianism to a full-fledged belief in the doctrines of grace, I was amazed to find that my hermeneutic played a key role. My Dispensational premillennial hermeneutic had me locked into a rather stultifying literalism which I ultimately came to recognize as the biblical blinders that they were. I thought my literalism was virtually God-given and anything else was sub-orthodox, at best. Once I recognized that language is far more flexible (and yet still highly orthodox) I began to understand how the doctrines of grace worked (not to mention how the scriptures and biblical theology really began to open up).

Not knowing where you are at, theologically speaking, I would recommend the following two - no, wait, three - resources:

1) The Bible and the Future by Anthony Hoekema This is the single most significant text that caused my hermeneutic to change and open up. As I mentioned above, my Dispensational premillenialism evaporated like the dew in the morning and I came to realize that my 'literal' hermeneutic was way too constrictive to be true to the Scriptures.

2) The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Loraine Boettner This is an old classic, and although it is written by a Calvinist, it has the benefit of being very irenic in tone and tries hard to be totally fair in its representation of the other side.

3) The Potter's Freedom by James White Although many of White's books have made it into Logos, this one has not. Nevertheless, I highly recommend it as an outstanding example of argumentation and excellent exegesis. In it, he takes to task Norm Geisler's book, Chosen But Free. White bends over backward to very carefully quote and represent Geisler's position with out any strawmen. If you have seminary training, you will find it mentally invigorating. And even if you are not trained in the biblical languages, you should be able to follow the exegetical argument and appreciate it.

Hope this helps.

(‾◡◝)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749737#Comment_749737

@Doc B:

Sorry to temporarily hijack this thread but I have been wondering what you've been up to ...

[;)]

Into Grace

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749942#Comment_749942

I recommend the book, Life in the Son. Unfortunately this excellent book is not in Logos. Here is the link: http://www.amazon.com/Life-Son-Robert-Shank/dp/1556610912/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1437191070&sr=8-1&keywords=Life+in+the+Son

Edwin Bowden

https://www.logos.com/product/20493/grace-faith-free-will-contrasting-views-of-salvation

James Burnett

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749949#Comment_749949

Thanks everyone for the suggestions.

JRS, to answer your question on where I am at I'd say the reformed position seems to make the most sense to me. The reason I am interested in this is because I have a few friends who are shying away from God because they see it as:

1. If Calvinism is true, then why would I want to worship such a monster? This reaction stems from fatalism, determinism and God is abhorent because he creates vessels of wrath for his own glory etc.

2. Calvinism is logically inconsistent. How can both human responsibility and God's sovereignty over everything in the world co-exist? The claim is here that the reformed theology leads to the human equivalent of 'syntax error'. I personally am not bothered here, I just hold these two positions in tension as two biblical truths that we don't fully understand the mechanics behind.

3. Arminianism makes the most sense to them.

While I understand that not everyone will be able to accept the reformed doctrines of grace, it just would be nice to have found a book that has the following approach.

1. Here are the Arminian truth claims (a series of biblical verses).

2. Here is the reformed position on these bible verses and the exegetical evidence to support this position.

Perhaps I am being too wishful here in thinking there is a 'silver bullet' out there like this. Thanks again everyone, I will check out the recommendations.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749954#Comment_749954

I know of a small paperback that tries to do just that (at least for calvinism), written from the calvinist position and told in story format. It chronicles a guys seminary, ministry, and marriage experiences while seeking what it means to be a calvinist.

Let me see if I can find it on Amazon, I doubt its carried here despite my request.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0925703117?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00

A Journey in Grace, by Richard Belcher. I found that some of the questions he asked I didn't care about, and some of the questions I cared about he didn't ask. However its an easy read, and was one of the books that tipped me towards calvinism.

Into Grace

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749957#Comment_749957

Hi James. There is a website that has a useful breakdown on the differences: http://evangelicalarminians.org/an-outline-of-the-facts-of-arminianism-vs-the-tulip-of-calvinism/

James Burnett

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749957#Comment_749957

Thanks abondservant,

I didn't purchase despite it being cheap - shipping to Australia takes a month and was quoted $30 for just that! For anyone else interested, I found this study guide to the book here:

http://www.sounddoctrine.net/stanford/A%20Journey%20in%20Grace%20Leaders%20Study%20Guide.pdf

I thought it was quite brilliantly written.

Dave L

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749954#Comment_749954

This is an inexpensive and easy to understand side by side comparison of both systems with an easy to read chart comparing point to point. It is the book that I mentioned above in Logos format, but is also available in print. I cannot speak highly enough about it.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Five-Points-Calvinism-Documented/dp/0875528279

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749817#Comment_749817

I found Wayne Grudem's systematic theology extremely helpful.

In fact I found it least helpful in those areas where he discusses reformed vs. Arminian topics. (speaking from a non-reformed perspective)

Doc B

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749942#Comment_749942

@Doc B:

Sorry to temporarily hijack this thread but I have been wondering what you've been up to ...

[:D] [:D] [:D]

Hamilton Ramos

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749954#Comment_749954

God bless:

James, from one of your posts: "1. If Calvinism is true, then why would I want to worship such a monster? This reaction stems from fatalism, determinism and God is abhorent because he creates vessels of wrath for his own glory etc."

There are other traditions that do not align fully with either camp, but take the best (closest to what seems to be true as per the Bible), which give a more plausible explanation. This does not mean that it is Absolute Truth.

Consider the following theological construct:

God in His omniscience, knew ahead of time what would each of the humans He was going to create would do if they were given free will.

He foresaw that most if not all of the participants in this thread (as a sample), would accept Him as Father, Savior, Lord, etc, and would love Him and would gladly accept becoming adopted children of His.

Some other humans, unfortunately would not.

Based on that previous knowledge, God put the names of those that believe and sided with Him, in the book of life. He also prepared good deeds for us to walk in from before the foundation of the World.

If the previous explanation is true (and it is a responsibility for each to search for its plausibility), then it could mean, that God "discerned" towards where your heart would lean: to Him, or to the devil.

Those with a heart for God then became the elected, chosen, or what you would like to call them.

Einstein said once that "God does not play dice with the Universe", so He had to set things up ahead of time.

Maybe something Jesus said pointed in that direction:

Note Matthew 13:24-30, and Matthew 13:37-43, some people are wheat, some are tares. God is not to be blamed for it, as in accordance with the above theory, each person was discerned by God to know which side they would lean towards:God, or else.

So from that perspective, if you happen to be a Tare, do not blame God, it was you deploying your free will in God's mind that in actual creation got you to be so.

Why Arminianism may have truth to it? To my understanding (I am still investigating), there is a problem with the Biblical fact of Apostasy.

It seems that Tares are going to infiltrate Church, and set up a bad system (to try to get believers to worship the unholy trinity), and it seems that some will fall for it.

So it is possible that those deceived were not elect in the first place, but maybe manufactured and /or false believers.

Revelation 3:15-19, if is applicable to us in modern times, it would seem to suggest that although on initial discernment of which way would your heart lean (God or evil), you still need to deliberately exert free will to walk in the good works God prepared for you beforehand, and to abide in Christ and the Holy Spirit to receive power to have successful Christian life. Note that failure to bear fruit with due diligence (including primarily being hot in the Holy Spirit presence in your life), may end up having God spiting you out.

One of the most probing theological questions for me is if through the Holy Spirit the Tares can become Wheat. And maybe such wonderful miracle of changing a tares destiny through intercessory prayer is what Jesus was pointing to in: Matthew 5:44, and John 14:12. Maybe God in HIs Hesed (lovingkindness), has given the Church the ministry of reconciliation to try to get the least amount of people to the lake of fire, as it was created for satan and his devils, and not for man.

I truly wish I could connect to Heaven's internet to get the true orthodox doctrine directly from God, who is the only fully orthodox Being, everyone else has a poor contextual understanding of the Bible.

Remember that I share to give you a different perspective so that you can research more, and just be advised that I am a non expert, but like theology very much, and think that most "orthodox" systems have valuable insights to offer.

I do not claim the above to be absolute truth, and I continue to research to try to find the right interpretation of many Bible thrusts.

Hope this helps, blessings.

Cynthia Tucker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/754535#Comment_754535

This website has some interesting comparative information, http://www.bible-researcher.com/arminianism.html and it mentions this book, which is in Logos: The Creeds of Christendom.

James Burnett

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/754535#Comment_754535

God in His omniscience, knew ahead of time what would each of the humans He was going to create would do if they were given free will.

He foresaw that most if not all of the participants in this thread (as a sample), would accept Him as Father, Savior, Lord, etc, and would love Him and would gladly accept becoming adopted children of His.

Some other humans, unfortunately would not.

Based on that previous knowledge, God put the names of those that believe and sided with Him, in the book of life. He also prepared good deeds for us to walk in from before the foundation of the World.

Hamilton thanks for the discussion, I always appreciate when people engage on this topic. About what you said above, doesn't this imply that we are not saved by the righteousness of Christ and the merits of him alone? I mean, if God saw who would have faith and believe in him, that is allowing for grace by human merit is it not?

Hamilton, this next section is not directed to you.

Guys sorry for the fatalistic question, but I would appreciate your thoughts on it, is there really any point to studying theology? I just think from most of the books I have read, they are full of dangerous extrapolations beyond what is really there, proof texting, etc? I can't say that I have come across a single theology book which has:

1. Sound objective exegesis.

2. Evaluation of all current views and which is most likely given the exegetical evidence, cultural setting, original purpose of the letter, evaluation of the wider context etc.

3. Conclusions limited to the evidence.

Largely it seems that when a theologian writes their book/article, it almost seems as if they are thinking 'Here are my beliefs that I want to justify in the Bible, so I will find some texts which seem to support my belief'. I think they have good intent, but ultimately miss the mark.

This is not an attack on theologians or anything, I just greatly struggle with this as I think it is very widely abused.

Cheers,

Mike Pettit

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/754535#Comment_754535

God bless:

James, from one of your posts: "1. If Calvinism is true, then why would I want to worship such a monster? This reaction stems from fatalism, determinism and God is abhorent because he creates vessels of wrath for his own glory etc."

There are other traditions that do not align fully with either camp, but take the best (closest to what seems to be true as per the Bible), which give a more plausible explanation. This does not mean that it is Absolute Truth.

Consider the following theological construct:

God in His omniscience, knew ahead of time what would each of the humans He was going to create would do if they were given free will.

He foresaw that most if not all of the participants in this thread (as a sample), would accept Him as Father, Savior, Lord, etc, and would love Him and would gladly accept becoming adopted children of His.

Some other humans, unfortunately would not.

Based on that previous knowledge, God put the names of those that believe and sided with Him, in the book of life. He also prepared good deeds for us to walk in from before the foundation of the World.

What you see as helpful can seem to others as dangerous, obnoxious and self indulgent heterodoxy. We are asked not to discuss theological positions on this site.

Hamilton Ramos

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/754676#Comment_754676

God bless:

James: "Hamilton thanks for the discussion, I always appreciate when people engage on this topic. About what you said above, doesn't this imply that we are not saved by the righteousness of Christ and the merits of him alone? I mean, if God saw who would have faith and believe in him, that is allowing for grace by human merit is it not?"

Remember that if God discerned a tendency (towards Him) there was no assurance of actual "doing what one must" until put to the test on Earth.

In the fallen condition, no one, not even the one with the most tendency towards God, can be saved. Notice that in several passages it says multitude when Jesus talked about His sacrifice (as in not for all), but without His sacrifice, no one could be saved.

Not by works, so no one can boast in front of God, but those elected are expected to do their part out of love and gratitude for such great undeserved gift of salvation.

James the below is not for you, as it seems that my posting was considered improper, and in violation of the rules.

As far as I know, I am not promoting any one theological system, nor denomination, I just share with James because I get sad when people (like the ones mentioned by James) say that God is a monster, that makes unholy vessels for His glory, etc, and I think it is a misrepresentation of the Character of God.

We are to check all and retain what is good. Anything else may be construed as attempt to indoctrinate.

Back to James:

James your selected topic is very important and interesting, maybe you should take it to "Christian Discourse" website to have more input without the risk of violating the rules of the forum here.

Blessing.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/754846#Comment_754846

Hey gang,

It appears this thread has become a theological discussion better suited for ChristianDiscourse.com