Calvinism vs. Arminianism - which side is correct?

"Anxious Enquirer." Many seem to feel a difficulty in reconciling these passages to which you refer, namely, John 3:16, and Rom. 8:29-30. But we must remember that no one passage of God's word can possibly clash with another. If they seem to do so, according to our thoughts, it simply proves our ignorance. There is then most perfect harmony between the truth of God's eternal counsels, and the truth of free salvation — between His sovereignty in predestination and election, and the message of His love to a lost world — between His deep and unsearchable purpose, and the glorious display of His character and the activities of His nature. True it is that theologians find difficulty in working both these things into their theological systems; but it is enough for us that both are found in the Holy Scriptures. We are not called to frame systems, but to receive, in artless simplicity, every word that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord. If this were borne in mind, it would hush the reasonings of many a restless spirit, and remove many a stumbling-block off the pathway of the anxious enquirer. We find one class of theologians who always take up one side of this great question, and present one line of scripture quotations in support of their view. They are right, so far as they go — right in what they hold. But then they reject the other side of the question, and either pass over or explain, in a one-sided manner, a large body of scripture texts which plainly support that side. They are wrong in what they reject. They hold predestination and election, and there they are right. They reject free salvation, and there they are wrong. Then, again, we find another class of theologians, who seem to see only the other side of the question, namely, God's love to the world and free salvation to every creature under heaven, and so far they are right — right in what they hold. But then they reject predestination, election, and final perseverance, and here they are wrong — wrong in what they reject. The former hold divine sovereignty, but deny, virtually, human responsibility. The latter hold human responsibility, but practically ignore divine sovereignty. Those hold the permanency of salvation, but deny its freedom. These hold its freedom, but deny its permanency. We find both in the Word, and believe them. To reconcile them is none of our business. They are reconciled already, inasmuch as they are taught in the Word. It would be a great mercy to souls, as well as a safeguard to truth, if men would preach Christ, and not doctrines or systems of doctrine. Let the teacher unfold doctrine; but let the evangelist preach Christ.

But, upon the ground of responsibility merely, men are lost. Hence the texts upon which Arminianism relies have to do with the world at large, with the provision made in grace for these, and the divine appeals to and dealings with them. An important class of texts, however, even with regard to these, they overlook or explain away, while they infer wrongly from their general texts as to the actual salvation of those saved. Calvinism, on the other hand, when it treats of actual salvation, is almost wholly right. Scripture and conscience agree here in their witness to its truth, and the opposition made is compelled to be mainly upon another ground, namely, the supposed bearing of this upon the case of the lost. Here the Arminian is upon his own ground, and if the Calvinist follow him here, he loses the strength he but now had, and Scripture and conscience turn against him.

But, upon the ground of responsibility merely, men are lost. Hence the texts upon which Arminianism relies have to do with the world at large, with the provision made in grace for these, and the divine appeals to and dealings with them. An important class of texts, however, even with regard to these, they overlook or explain away, while they infer wrongly from their general texts as to the actual salvation of those saved. Calvinism, on the other hand, when it treats of actual salvation, is almost wholly right. Scripture and conscience agree here in their witness to its truth, and the opposition made is compelled to be mainly upon another ground, namely, the supposed bearing of this upon the case of the lost. Here the Arminian is upon his own ground, and if the Calvinist follow him here, he loses the strength he but now had, and Scripture and conscience turn against him.

Thus Calvinism and Arminianism are both at fault; and the truth conveyed is larger than the one and more definite than the other, refusing the fetters of human system, and yet exhibiting a precise as well as an infinite character, being the revealed truth of God.

In short then not only not Paul but no other inspired writer ever speaks of "eternal reprobation;" it is merely a dream of a certain school. So the curse of God follows, instead of causing, the impious ways of men. Arminianism is wholly astray no doubt in reducing God's election to a mere foresight of good in some creatures; but Calvinism is no less erroneous in imputing the evil lot of the first Adam race to God's decree. They both spring from analogous roots of unbelief: Calvinism reasoning, contrary to scripture, from the truth of election to the error of eternal reprobation; Arminianism rightly rejecting that reprobation but wrongly reasoning against election. Like other systems they are in part true and in part false — true in what they believe of scripture, false in yielding to human thoughts outside scripture: happy those, who are content as Christians with the truth of God and refuse to be partisans on either side of men! Our wisdom is to have our minds open to all scripture, refusing to go a hair-breadth farther.

The Arminian scheme necessarily fails by making man guilty and sinful, to go as partner with God in his own salvation. But if it be true as scripture plainly declares, that man is dead in trespasses and sins, not the Gentile only but the favoured Jew too, that question is decided. Arminianism is farther from the truth than Calvinism.

Nothing is more damaging to the truth of God, more withering to the soul, or more subversive of all spiritual growth and progress than mere theology, high or low — Calvinistic or Arminian. It is impossible for the soul to make progress beyond the boundaries of the system to which it is attached. If I am taught to regard "the five points" as "the faith of God's elect," I shall not think of looking beyond them; and then a most glorious field of heavenly truth is shut out from the vision of my soul. I am stunted, narrowed, one-sided; and I am in danger of getting into that hard, dry state of soul which results from being occupied with mere points of doctrine instead of with Christ. A disciple of the high school of doctrine will not hear of a world-wide gospel — of God's love to the world — of glad tidings to every creature under Heaven. He has only gotten a gospel for the elect. On the other hand, a disciple of the low or Arminian school will not hear of the eternal security of God's people. Their salvation depends partly upon Christ, and partly upon themselves. According to this system, the song of the redeemed should be changed. Instead of "Worthy is the Lamb," we should have to add, "and worthy are we." We may be saved today, and lost tomorrow. All this dishonours God, and robs the Christian of all true peace.

A disciple of the high school of doctrine will not hear of a world-wide gospel--of God's love to the world--of glad tidings to every creature under Heaven. He has only gotten a gospel for the elect. On the other hand, a disciple of the low or Arminian school will not hear of the eternal security of God's people. Their salvation depends partly upon Christ, and partly upon themselves. According to this system, the song of the redeemed should be changed. Instead of "Worthy is the Lamb," we should have to add, "and worthy are we." We may be saved to-day, and lost to-morrow. All this dishonors God, and robs the Christian of all true peace.

This is admittedly a paradox: it seems to be contradictory, but is not. Believers have often had great difficulty with this matter. Some have seen one side so clearly that they deny the other side, or take away its real significance in an effort to make the two fit to their satisfaction. But both are fully true, and not to be tampered with. Some will say that only God's divine choice is to be considered, and therefore that God gave His Son only for the elect. Thus they preach a limited atonement, available to the elect alone and to no others. On the other hand, some insist that salvation depends entirely on the choice of individuals, saying that Christ bore the sins of all, and the one determining factor in their salvation is their own will in either accepting or rejecting the salvation of God. They insist that God leaves this choice entirely to the "free will" of the individual.

E. All that God has spoken — both that “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16); and also that “God has chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world,” &c. (Eph. 1:4.) The Arminian seems to believe only one of these truths; the Calvinist only the other; but, as a Christian, I surely believe both. As I have lately written a tract on “Election,” I would refer you to that small pamphlet. The gospel supper was ample, and all were invited, but all refused. Then infinite, sovereign grace compels some, even the most hell-deserving, to come in. Oh, the riches of His grace!