Who is Right: Calvinists or Armenians

Image created by AI

What you choose may say more about you than anything.

The two main theological systems of protestant Christianity have clashed for years, and we seem no closer to solving the issue now than 500 years ago.

The point of either one is to put the entirety of the gospel into perspective. They both try to make something very complex into something easy to understand, which has some value. Both have strengths and weaknesses.

Both try to explain the greatest mysteries of life.

What is the nature of God?

What is the nature of man?

What is the nature of the relationship between God and man?

Trying to break that into five short points is an oversimplification, to say the least.

I can see how both are justified Biblically. I could make a decent Biblical case for either one, or build a Biblical case to refute either one.

The problem, as I see it, is either one has to explain away some of the Bible. The same scripture that says “whoever will,” also says “God chose you.” The interesting thing to me is that Biblical writers recognized this and did not see a problem with saying both.

It is we who have a problem. Instead of letting the Bible say both, and believing that both are true — because that is what the Bible says — we try to make only one of them true.

This is why Calvinism and Arminianism exist, and why the debate rages. Both have good qualities but both have to ignore verses they don’t like.

There are “tensions” in the Bible, ideas that appear to oppose each other. They are a paradox. Some people don’t like paradoxes because it leaves uncertainty.

That is basically what Calvinism and Arminiasm do. God chose us, yet God says whosoever will. The options are to believe both are true because that is what God said-or pay more attention to one or the other.

My background

For some background: I was once pretty much a Calvinist. I didn’t believe in limited atonement because it is clear that Jesus died for the sins of the entire world. I would say that it is effective only for the believer. But if that is the case, why is it even necessary for people to accept the gift when it is already paid for and given?

I also struggled with irresistible grace. I was pretty good at resisting grace — regeneration — even as a believer, so it was hard to believe one could not refuse to be part of God’s family.

A lot of Christians mix and match, liking two or three of one or the other. That may be a good way to approach the two, or you can see both as having value, but see no need to align with one or the other.

The mystery

God is all-knowing, all-powerful, sovereign over everything that exists, or ever will exist. Logically, this means God knows the future, which causes one to struggle with free will. But somehow, in a way I cannot explain, God knowing the future is not the same thing as God ordaining or planning the future.

We still have choices even though God knows what those choices will be. If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, he has to know the future. Some Christians think God is at the same time we are and does not know the future, but that seems to go against the sovereign nature of an all-powerful God.

Calvinists paint God as an arbitrary ruler who orders the outcome, which is not fair. Armenians weaken God to make Him dependent on our choices.

Or to put it more positively.

Calvinists see God as all-knowing and all-powerful and develop the rest from there. Armenians focus on the human aspect of the relationship with God.

Does it matter?

The thing is, there is no reason to choose one or the other. Adopting either one can be an excuse not to think for yourself or to wrestle with deep theological questions yourself. It’s much easier to grab a list of points and then defend those points. You can find plenty of Bible to back up either one of those theological constructs. But you end up having to explain away other parts of the Bible.

The basic message of the Bible is simple, but trying to understand God is difficult. Our finite human minds can’t gasp the mind of God.

A better way

Instead of debating this issue, choosing one or the other, and defending that viewpoint, we should develop our theological system ourselves. It will take a very long time and a lot of work, and you may never complete the work, but that would be more fulfilling.

Calvinism emphasizes the role of God, while Armenians emphasize man’s role. Choosing one might reveal more about your priorities than God’s truth.

Theology is not something you find, put in a box, and then you are done. Your theology should be a part of you. It should develop as you continue on your spiritual journey.

Some people don’t like paradoxes, and I suppose I’m the odd one. I like the grey, the lack of certainty, embracing the mystery. The paradox between free will and God’s sovereignty is just one of those things that I cannot explain. Again, choosing one might reveal more about your priorities than God’s truth. I am OK with that.

When “Prayer and Fasting” was banned from the Bible

Some critics of modern Bible versions point out where verses in the King James Version are “left out” or listed only as footnotes in more recent translations.

The story of a man who was a “lunatic” who was healed by Jesus is told in the three synoptic gospels. The disciples had been given power and authority to drive out demons but in this case, they had failed. Mark’s gospel uses the phrase “Prayer and Fasting,” but in Matthew it is not included in modern translations, though the King James Version of Matthew has it. So why do modern translations leave the phrase out of Matthew’s gospel?

Mentally ill people were thought to be demon-possessed in ancient times. Today we think we know better, but there probably are cases where the problem is more demonic than biological. Leaving that debate for another day, let’s consider why it is left out of the gospel of Matthew.

Jesus told them they had been unable to drive out the demon because of their lack of faith. In Mark’s gospel, he tells them this was a tougher case and needed prayer and fasting to bolster one’s faith, or in addition to faith.

The problem is, that this verse is not found in the oldest manuscripts of Matthew. Remember chapters and verses were not added until much later. The Gospel of Mark (9:29) tells the same story and includes the phrase “prayer and fasting,” in the oldest manuscripts.

It seems that at some point, scribes copied the verse from Mark and added it to Matthew’s gospel. Luke also tells the story (chapter 9) and does not include the phrase. It is not in any copies of Luke.

Based on the best and oldest manuscripts, it seems that only Mark included that phrase. It was added to Matthew later and was never in Luke. John does not tell the story.

What it means

What shall we say then? Is this a contradiction? Was there a conspiracy among modern translators to de-emphasize prayer and fasting? No, probably not. I would pull out Occam’s Razor (the simplest explanation is best) to answer the question.

Most scholars believe Mark was the first gospel written, and that Matthew and Luke may have used Mark as a source. Mark used the phrase and the other two did not.

God did not direct each word, or dictate the message. God did, however, inspire the writers to write what they did. Mark included the phrase and the other two did not.

It was added later to Matthew. It was never added to Luke. That is why it is not in modern translations of Matthew. Simple as that.