The Sacred Sandwich

July13th

52 Comments

Debating Calvinism

Posted in: The Illustrated Sandwich

Print This Post Print This Post

52 Comments

  • Comment by Ryan Cavanaugh — July 13, 2010 @ 2:58 am

    Yea, thats pretty much how it goes when i get into a debate (in christian love of course) with some of my friends.

  • Comment by OPtimizer — July 13, 2010 @ 4:16 am

    Dear SacredSanwich,

    again u would see me sitting with an open mouth in front of my monitor..i u could see me. You are so creative in creating intelligent jokes that I mis the words to express my joy about.
    THX! Go on!
    More! I´m addicted to Sacred Sandwich.

  • Comment by Robert — July 13, 2010 @ 8:48 am

    Leave it to the Arminian to blink. But it could just as well have been the Calvinist shouting “illogical!”

  • Comment by Chris Bloom — July 13, 2010 @ 9:22 am

    I’m surprised the Calvinist waited so long to throw Romans 9 in. In my experience, they usually shoot the big gun first … and then repeat it, over and over and over …

  • Comment by Kendall — July 13, 2010 @ 9:24 am

    In a short time you will you will persuade me to become a Calvinist.

  • Comment by Angus — July 13, 2010 @ 10:22 am

    Yes, it is all part of my devious “Calvinism by humor” initiative. Bwahahaha!

  • Comment by Seth — July 13, 2010 @ 10:40 am

    Alternate Arminian Response: but … but … Kant said …

  • Pingback by Tweets that mention Debating Calvinism - The Sacred Sandwich -- Topsy.com — July 13, 2010 @ 2:35 pm

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by MarkLaRoi, DNC DUDES. DNC DUDES said: @glennbeck Debating Calvinism: When proof texts aren't enough. http://bit.ly/9yH7HG #tcot [...]

  • Comment by Kendall — July 13, 2010 @ 2:45 pm

    Angus, is that like Adventisms “salvation by soy”?

  • Comment by Angus — July 13, 2010 @ 2:49 pm

    Uh, hope not!

  • Comment by Bereanwarrior — July 13, 2010 @ 6:09 pm

    Calvinist – “The Bible” , Arminian – “Dave Hunt”.

  • Comment by Kendall — July 13, 2010 @ 7:40 pm

    Calvinist-Calvin,The Bible-God,Arminian-Arminius,Dave Hunt -Dave Hunt….not quite sure about Arminius

  • Comment by Russ — July 13, 2010 @ 8:26 pm

    The correct answer to “Romans 9″ is “read the context.” While the joke here is supposed to be on Arminians, the real joke is on the entire church –we’re addicted to “proof verses,” rarely knowing what the context actually is (as in the case of Romans 9:10-23, which has nothing to do with individual predestination either way.

  • Comment by ELizabeth — July 13, 2010 @ 10:05 pm

    Amen Russ!

  • Comment by stranger.strange.land — July 13, 2010 @ 11:24 pm

    Angus,

    Fortunately for my keyboard, I had already finished my A&W Rootbeer when I read this post.

    Mega-LOL

  • Comment by Dominic — July 14, 2010 @ 3:10 am

    How (on earth) do Romans 9:15 & 16 have nothing to do with individual pre-destination?

    I suppose if you really don’t want them to have anything to do with it you could convince yourself of that, but…

    More seriously than such opposition, great post. Thanks, Angus.

  • Comment by Rick Presley — July 14, 2010 @ 6:15 am

    Do Calvinists ever wonder if their opponents are predestined to Arminiansm? Or are they convinced that Arminians can become Calvinists by an act of free will?

  • Comment by Presbus — July 14, 2010 @ 12:20 pm

    Look, freewill is all over the Bible:

    “No Ammonite or Moabite may enter the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of them may enter the assembly of the LORD forever” (Deuteronomy 23:3 ESV)

    Oh, nevermind!

  • Comment by Bereanwarrior — July 14, 2010 @ 12:51 pm

    Rick – In all seriousness, it’s been a matter of maturity for most of the calvinists I know, including me. It’s been asked “What does the text mean when you’re dead?”. It’s not a matter of interpretation, but rather letting the text speak for itself. The only way that the harder verses make sense is if God is in full control, and not hoping that this or that turns out in a positive way. I fought hard and long as an Arminian for 14 years until I quit defending a dogma and started letting the Word say what It says. Instead of coming to a calvinist site and posting your little drive bys, why not spend that time discerning an intelligent and reasonable understanding of Romans 8 and 9, Ephesians, and John 16-17 among the many? You don’t even understand what freedom is until you are freed by God’s grace. If you think you came to Christ through your own decision, you have not let the text (or context) speak for itself.

  • Comment by stranger.strange.land — July 14, 2010 @ 1:36 pm

    Rick Presley —

    Do Calvinists ever wonder if their opponents are predestined to Arminiansm? Or are they convinced that Arminians can become Calvinists by an act of free will?

    I think what we call “Arminianism” is the natural propensity of our hearts to think we can do something, however small, that is meritorious toward our salvation. This emerged in the Roman Catholic Church and made the Reformation necessary. It emerged in the days of Augustine with the heresy of Pelagius; it emerged in the churches of Galatia with the controversy about circumcision, and in the legalism of Jesus’ day. The very first emergence of it was in Adam and Eve’s hiding their nakedness with coverings of their own making.

  • Comment by LAurie — July 14, 2010 @ 1:51 pm

    II Timothy 2:14-19, keeps my praying and striving to handle His Word accurately, not wrangling, or causing dissention among believers……

  • Comment by Angus — July 14, 2010 @ 2:46 pm

    I shouldn’t be surprised that a post called “Debating Calvinism” would cause a debate in the comment thread, but I was hoping that both parties could see the humor in poking fun at those moments when we all stray from the Bible as the source of our doctrinal position. For the sake of a more lighthearted interaction, can’t we just leave it at that?

    Granted, in this instance the “Arminian” becomes the focus of the joke (I guess), but it’s based on the too-frequent use of the Servetus red herring and shouldn’t be something that an Arminian reader deems unfair. Believe me, I’ve skewered my share of Calvinistic faults in the past and will continue to do so as I examine the whole landscape of Christiandom. As Christians, I hope we can handle the satirical scrutiny, especially when it hits too close to home.

    Sola Scriptura!

  • Comment by Kendall — July 14, 2010 @ 5:46 pm

    Amen Angus!

  • Comment by Carol — July 14, 2010 @ 9:17 pm

    Completely over my head…being that I don’t know the “debate” with these two positions.

    There are these little jokes commenting on Calvinists and Arminians…and you can lose folks with these kind of things. For those, like myself, who doesn’t know these things, it makes it seem like Christianity is either this, or that…and the twain shall never meet.

    I know there is a reason for these kind of jokes…but for those of us who are not scholared on Calvinism and Arminian teachings…it loses us.

  • Comment by stranger.strange.land — July 14, 2010 @ 10:37 pm

    Well said, Angus.

    With your permission, I would like to invite those who wish, to join a polite discussion that we have been enjoying on my blog.

    Craig

  • Comment by Angus — July 15, 2010 @ 1:06 am

    stranger, that would be a more appropriate forum for a continued discussion. Thanks for the offer!

  • Comment by JB — July 15, 2010 @ 9:45 am

    It simply amazes me that people actually think this has anything to do with real Christianity…

  • Comment by Mark — July 15, 2010 @ 9:35 pm

    Fun. E.

    :)

  • Comment by The Squirrel — July 15, 2010 @ 10:29 pm

    Thanks for that… now I have to clean iced tea off of my monitor…

    Squirrel

  • Comment by cubsfan — July 15, 2010 @ 10:44 pm

    John 3:16!

  • Comment by Jay — July 15, 2010 @ 10:49 pm

    This was very well-designed humor, in that the reader really doesn’t need to know the details of the arguments used by either side, nor even what those specific verses are or mean, yet they can still ‘get’ or appreciate the humor of the dude on the right panicking and quoting something extrabiblical. :)

  • Comment by Jeff — July 15, 2010 @ 11:23 pm

    I guess it’s funny for some, but for others like me, this debate is causing a lot of confusion for me. Anyway, it wasn’t just Servetus but what about all those Anabaptist the Calvinist/Protestants drowned and persecuted? Or is the Church History as presented by David Cloud wrong? What do you do with the very Catholic infant baptism stuff Calvinist/Protestants killed others over? Or Augustine’s fierce persecution of the Donatists?

    This is probably the wrong place to ask such questions, I’m sure to be chastised or edited, or censored anyway. (I’m used to IFB they do it too when I ask them questions)

  • Comment by Kehinde Omotayo — July 16, 2010 @ 5:21 am

    Hilarious!! but true

  • Comment by John Orlando — July 16, 2010 @ 6:19 am

    Carol,

    Though the discussion is, as you say, lost on many today, the fact is tha the discussion actually is found within the Bible itself (though it is not called “calvinism/arminianism). We see the discussion between the two competing theologies of who does what in salvation throughout the pages of Scripture. Two of the more popular places are in John 6, and Rom 8-9 (Paul’s question in Rom 9:19 is telling: “You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” – notice, he anticipates an objection to what he has been saying concerning the soveriegnty of God’s grace, which evidently was a common objection that he had to answer frequently. One should also note that the objection that Paul anticipates is essentially the same objection that is raised by our Arminian brothers and sisters against what is now labeled “calvinism.”

    As we turn to church history, we discover that the “discussion” continued, from Augustine all the way up to Reformation. It was only in the years after the Reformation that the competing views were labeled “Calvinism” and “Arminianism” due to the significant debate that took place within the Reformed church in the 17th century. There arose a group within the church who, following the teachings and objections of a man named Jacobus Arminius, put forward 5 articles of objections to 5 different areas of church teaching. The church responded to those 5 articles with what came to be known as the 5 points of Calvinism (named after the great Reformer John Calvin, and really key figure of the Reformed church). Of course, Calvin didn’t create anything new. What he and the other Reformers put forward was a return to historic, Biblical Christianity as expressed first in Scripture, and then in other places in church history.

    Lastly, the discussion between Calvinists and Arminians is an “in-house” discussion. You can look it as an incredibly important discussion between those who are brothers and sisters and have (or at least should have) a deep love for one another, but, they disagree over some very important issues. Unfortunately, like real brothers and sisters, they don’t always “disagree” well–they sometimes say and do very nasty things to one another and treat each other contemptibly, which is a disgrace to both when this happens.

    By His Grace and For His Glory,

    John O

  • Comment by Don — July 16, 2010 @ 6:36 am

    “Or is the Church History as presented by David Cloud wrong?”

    Yes. It is Fundy biased. But this is not the place to get into revisionist history. (those who interpret history according to the presuppositions they wish to defend)

  • Pingback by Debating Calvinism – The Sacred Sandwich « Reformation And Revival Ministries — July 16, 2010 @ 6:48 am

    [...] Debating Calvinism – The Sacred Sandwich By Bill Price, on July 16th, 2010 Debating Calvinism – The Sacred Sandwich. [...]

  • Comment by Tim Bushong — July 16, 2010 @ 8:45 am

    Absolutely great!

  • Pingback by Pearls of the day « Wrestling With Water — July 16, 2010 @ 1:36 pm

    [...] Debating Calvinism [...]

  • Pingback by Hilarity from Sacred Sandwich | Think! – Wrestlin’ With Wordz-N-Ideaz — July 16, 2010 @ 2:50 pm

    [...] http://sacredsandwich.com/archives/7412 [...]

  • Pingback by Debating Calvinists (Humor) « Diglotting — July 16, 2010 @ 5:36 pm

    [...] Calvinists (Humor) 16 07 2010 After James White drew my attention to this funny cartoon, I decided to attempt my own tongue-in-cheek cartoon of what it is like to discuss soteriological [...]

  • Comment by Carol — July 18, 2010 @ 11:25 am

    Thanks John, for helping me out!

    I could add this, some people feel they are sound because they hold to church “Traditions” that may not be Scripturally sound but have been supported for centuries, like infant baptism. We need to know the Word of God and be guided by it, rather than allowing other people to “interpret” things for us.

    We need to be careful in what we read and who we hold as sound leaders of our faith. Some like to be lured into warm fuzzies with positive thinking messages…but we need to be careful what is considered Biblical truths regarding our minds..and what to think upon…and not just things that are “positive”….

  • Comment by BJ Mora — July 18, 2010 @ 10:01 pm

    “Burma!”

  • Comment by Kirk — July 19, 2010 @ 7:43 am

    Freewillism is a False Gospel —> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChFyB2_XF5w

  • Comment by Darren — July 19, 2010 @ 1:03 pm

    What an excellent comic. I looked up scripture, read the wiki on Servetus, paused in thoughtful consideration of the arguments presented and then chuckled at the joke. Thanks for that.

  • Comment by Chris Bloom — July 19, 2010 @ 4:06 pm

    I’m just happy to know that as an Anabaptist, I’d be able to get both sides to bury their differences long enough to burn me at the stake. Just doing my part for Christian unity, brothers and sisters! ;)

  • Comment by Mike — July 19, 2010 @ 8:03 pm

    So here’s the deal…I’m gonna go ahead and assume it’s cool if I repost this on my blog (with full credit and a link of course) and you agree not to thump me. A polite “remove or be throat punched” is all that is needed to get me to remove it.

  • Pingback by Friday Favorites 07/23 — July 23, 2010 @ 9:30 am

    [...] A very funny illustration of Debating Calvinism. [...]

  • Comment by Maverick — July 24, 2010 @ 6:43 pm

    If either position were correct, I would choose one, but since both have errors I choose to stick to the Bible and not dead theologians.

  • Comment by Clay — July 25, 2010 @ 7:04 pm

    What fun, sort of. Just discovered this enticingly tasty blog. This post is a reminder to me of the folly of historically entrenched systematic theology over a Spirit-driven biblical theology. If you have to believe in Calvinism before you can truly understand Scripture, as we have been told many times, then forget Servetus (if you can) and let’s talk about neo-Gnosticism. I don’t need the secret decoder doctrines to understand the Scriptures; I need the Holy Spirit, the witness of the church, and good scholarship. A plain reading of Scripture, with no “God goggles” on, affirms both God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. Just deal with it. The early church did.

  • Comment by JohnP — August 25, 2010 @ 7:21 pm

    Why view Romans 9 as dealing with individual salvation? It specifically names Jacob and Esau, who were individuals. Oh, how I didn’t wake up in the morning and, by my own goodness, choose to believe in Jesus. No, salvation wasn’t a reward for my good choice. I only chose because God first regenerated me, a sinnner who hated Him, and I responded by seeing Jesus as my crucified Savior! Does the fact that John said that the New Birth doesn’t originate with human decision (John 1:12-13) bother any Arminian out there?

  • Comment by Dominic — August 26, 2010 @ 2:49 am

    JohnP – I’m with you, or rather, with Jesus on this one.

    However, if someone is saved at least they are saved, so along with George Whitefield as he looked at John Wesley, although I know the fundamental error being made it doens’t stop them being saved so I’m prepared not to get overly hot under the collar about it.

  • Comment by Mike D'Virgilio — August 26, 2010 @ 3:05 pm

    I remember when I was at my most hard core Calvinist many years ago reading something about A.W. Pink, I think it was. He was so tenacious for the purity of Calvinist doctrine that over time he became convinced that he was the only Christian in the world! I would say I’m still Reformed in my theological perspective, but my view of God’s mercy and grace have expanded greatly since those days. If someone affirms the Nicene and Apostles creed their good in my book.

    Just found this site via Breakpoint, and look forward to coming back often.

TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Return to the Homepage