What biblical passage do you find most problematic for your view on election?

[TheNoviceCometh]

I find the subject especially difficult because I can find 10 good passages for either position. Kingsgambit: What are you an Arminian? Just curious!

[The Remonstrant]

Over time, I've discovered texts such as John 3:16, 2 Corinthians 5:14-21 and 1 John 2:2 to be extremely problematic to the Arminian system of thought. In fact, it's texts like these that have influenced (or rather caused) me to embrace Calvinism. You may call me The Contra-Remonstrant from this point forward.

[Christianbookworm]

I've come to find texts like John 3:16, 2 Corinthians 5:14-21 and 1 John 2:2 extremely problematic to the Arminian system of thought. In fact, it's texts like these that have influenced (or rather caused) me to embrace Calvinism. You may call me The Contra-Remonstrant from this point forward.

Could you please explain how? I'm rather undogmatic on the whole Calvinism vs Arminian debate.

[Dante]

Over time, I've discovered texts such as John 3:16, 2 Corinthians 5:14-21 and 1 John 2:2 to be extremely problematic to the Arminian system of thought. In fact, it's texts like these that have influenced (or rather caused) me to embrace Calvinism. You may call me The Contra-Remonstrant from this point forward.

Wait, is that sarcasm?

[The Remonstrant]

Could you please explain how? I'm rather undogmatic on the whole Calvinism vs Arminian debate.

Facetiousness.

[Dante]

I'm always curious what people view as the strongest arguments for the other side. For example, as an Arminian, I find 1 John 2:19 to be the most difficult verse to contend with, and to be honest, I've never seen an Arminian explanation of it that I find truly satisfying. I.H. Marshall doesn't mention it in his classic defense of conditional security, Kept By The Power of God, and in his commentary on the Epistles of John, he doesn't attempt to "explain it away" at all.

In the first place, I do not see how 1 John 2:19 has anything to do with election, since for me in the larger context it deals with the perseverance of the saints, as made clear in verse 24:

"24 As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father."

Of course, the only people who might regard 1 John 2:19 as teaching election are Calvinists.
http://faithcontenders.com/2010/1jo2-19-us/

[The Remonstrant]

Dante:

I agree. I've taken a similar approach myself.

[RBerman]

Of course, the only people who might regard 1 John 2:19 as teaching election are Calvinists.

I don't see it as teaching election explicitly, but I can see the challenge its logic poses for those who would deny eternal security. Many Arminians are "one point Calvinists" in this respect.

[KingsGambit]

I find the subject especially difficult because I can find 10 good passages for either position. Kingsgambit: What are you an Arminian? Just curious!

I'm an Arminian, though I suspect the full mechanism of how it's set up is more complicated than any of us can know.

[phat8594]

Welcome back! I agree that context solves a lot of these apparent proof-textual problems. As to the latter, I don't see the Church spending a lot of time arguing about Calvinism. Most Arminians in my community have never actually talked about Calvinism to a Calvinist, and their view is simply a thirdhand caricature. But yes, on fora such as this board, I do think it's a good idea not to continually debate the same questions with the same people once it's been established that neither person is convinced by the other.

Thanks! I don't know how much I will be on here...

maybe I just see more people arguing about it and dividing than necessary. Personally, I try to never make a point of it when teaching. If my point in teaching a passage is to teach people about calvinism or arminianism, and not Jesus...then I think I would be treading on dangerous ground...but perhaps that is just my thinking.

Blessing RB!

[Zymologist]

Thanks! I don't know how much I will be on here...

maybe I just see more people arguing about it and dividing than necessary. Personally, I try to never make a point of it when teaching. If my point in teaching a passage is to teach people about calvinism or arminianism, and not Jesus...then I think I would be treading on dangerous ground...but perhaps that is just my thinking.

Blessing RB!

I think this is a good approach. I'm not a Calvinist, and I have multiple significant issues with it, but I also have good friends and family members who are Calvinists. We get along marvelously in spite of that. It doesn't have to, and shouldn't, be the bone of contention that it is between Christians. In Christ, we have far more in common than not.

[Dante]

I don't see it as teaching election explicitly, but I can see the challenge its logic poses for those who would deny eternal security. Many Arminians are "one point Calvinists" in this respect.

Actually, Classical Arminians would have been regarded as "two point Calvinists" since Arminius himself stressed total depravity and the perseverance of the saints. I think this illustrates the problem with most Calvinists in that they do not actually understand Arminianism apart from Calvinist caricatures.

[robrecht]

I am not Armenian but my father was a wandering Aramean.

[GoBahnsen]

I find the term "election" problematic. Why does God use the term? It seems to just make for a big fight. Some are happy to find out God elected them. Others are mad that He didn't elect everyone. Some think they elected themselves. People like to debate about it and make others feel stupid for thinking God would elect someone. Stuff like that is problematic to me.

Aside from that, even if I were to mention a verse that seems problematic to my view, I would just hide out in Romans 9 all day in order to deal with the apparent problem. And that is probably problematic to someone else.

[Dante]

I find the term "election" problematic. Why does God use the term? It seems to just make for a big fight. Some are happy to find out God elected them. Others are mad that He didn't elect everyone. Some think they elected themselves. People like to debate about it and make others feel stupid for thinking God would elect someone. Stuff like that is problematic to me.

Aside from that, even if I were to mention a verse that seems problematic to my view, I would just hide out in Romans 9 all day in order to deal with the apparent problem. And that is probably problematic to someone else.

God used the term because that's the way God works. The only difference is what kind of election did God use, whether it is individual or corporate, conditional or unconditional, that we are working out from the Bible. The only people who should feel stupid are those who insist that God does not elect anyone, since the Bible makes it clear that God does elect people.

And of course, those who believe that God elects individuals would have a different interpretation of Romans 9 than those who believe God elects corporately.