Calvinism and Arminianism:
Myths & Realities
Calvinist, George Whitefield: “And so it is, but not his saving mercy. God is loving to every man: he sends his rain upon the evil and upon the good.” (A Letter from George Whitefield to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, emphasis mine)
Rain was not superficial, but absolutely necessary for farming and sustenance. So if God would be so moved by their earthly needs, why would He be less interested in their eternal needs?
Calvinist, James White: “Surely it is part of modern evangelical tradition to say, ‘God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life,’ but providing a meaningful biblical basis for this assertion is significantly more difficult.” (Debating Calvinism, p.265, emphasis mine)
James White: “Everyone knows John 3:16, and that’s the problem. So many are familiar with the verse that very few stop to consider the traditions that have been packed very carefully into its constant and often acontextual citation.” (Debating Calvinism, p.376, emphasis mine)
Calvinist, Jay Adams: “As a Reformed Christian, the writer believes that counselors must not tell any unsaved counselee that Christ died for him, for they cannot say that. No man knows except Christ himself who are his elect for whom he died. But the counselor’s task is to explain the gospel and to say very plainly that God commands all men to repent of their sin and believe in Jesus Christ.” (Competent to Counsel, p.70, emphasis mine)
One member of The Society of Evangelical Arminians: “I agree with this idea that you are proposing of focusing on the doctrines of the goodness of God. One of the key things that I have constantly pushed in my discussions with Calvinists is that Arminians center their theological distinctives on the righteousness of God, whereas Calvinists center their distinctives on God’s sovereignty. It is not that one precludes the other, but that the center of discussion will ultimately be revealed as one or the other. I believe this is one of the reason why Calvinists ultimately gravitate to Romans 9:20 when challenge about how their doctrine depicts God’s righteousness. Their interpretation of that verse has provided an escape for them by their implicit suggestion that we are not allowed to examine the righteousness of God in salvation. We must just accept it. Arminians (and other non-Calvinist) begin at the goodness/righteousness of God and move outward from there.”
I believe that an emphasis on the goodness of God, will have a net effect upon Calvinists as charging back with Universalism, even though neither party advocates it, as both parties fully agree that God is too good not to punish wickedness. So any such response would be more of a knee-jerk reaction. Again, as emphasized by Michael Brown, Arminians are not suggesting that Calvinists reject the goodness of God, but rather that their theology of Preterition invariably degrades it, especially when you view it in light of the casual indifference of the pass-by theology of the priest and the Levite of Luke 10:30-31.
Michael Brown explains: “I’m fully aware that ‘the doctrines of grace’ is a terminus technicus (albeit a popular one) for Calvinism, and I know that some of you use it here without the slightest condescension on your part, but as a non-Calvinist, I find the term offensive.
I revel in God’s grace as much as any Calvinist I have ever met or ever read, and every Arminian I have ever met who sang Amazing Grace did so with amazement and astonishment. I fervently hold to the doctrines of grace!
To help balance the discussion, then, I propose here that Arminians consistently say that we hold to the DOCTRINE OF THE GOODNESS OF GOD. This will do two things: 1) It will convey to our Calvinistic friends that, in our eyes, they diminish God’s goodness by their doctrine (just as they believe we diminish God’s grace); and 2) It will make them realize how their use of terms like ‘the doctrines of grace’ (as opposed to the Reformed Faith) and ‘orthodoxy’ make Arminians immediately protest, ‘But I too hold to the doctrines of grace and I too am orthodox!’
I know that we sometimes describe our beliefs in this way, but let’s do it consistently to level the playing field with the hope that, over time, Calvinists would no longer describe their belief as ‘the doctrines of grace’ without saying, ‘And, of course, we know that Arminians also hold to the doctrines of grace.’ Should they say to us, ‘But you don’t!,’ then we could say, ‘Neither do you hold to the doctrine of the goodness of God,’ thus driving home to the point. (I could make similar points about those, like my friend Dr. White, who like to frame things in terms of monergism vs. synergism.)
Shall we do it? For me, I am NOT saying that a Calvinist doesn’t hold to the goodness of God but rather that their emphasis diminishes the presentation of His goodness.” (Line of Fire Blog, March 25, 2010, Finding Common Ground, edited, emphasis mine)
Arminian Charge: Calvinism diminishes the goodness of God.
Myth or Reality: If a parent loved only some of their children, and hated the others, would you say that they are a loving parent?
