4) Calvinism and Armenianism: Considering a 50/50 Approach

               So we see that both Calvinism and Armenianism possess critical flaws which prevent us from, in good conscience, believing wholly in one or wholly in the other.  Our immediate reaction is to attempt a 50/50 approach, wherein we select half of the beliefs of Calvinism and half of the beliefs of Armenianism and attempt to arrange them into some winsome, coherent theology.  While well meant, this approach is not mindful of exactly what Calvinism and Armenianism are.  The one who attempts this probably sees Calvinism and Armenianism something like two baskets of apples, from which we can assemble our own “basket” by plucking some apples from Calvinism and some apples from Armenianism.  But Calvinism and Armenianism are not like this at all.  They are theologies with their own logical flow.  No one doctrine can be plucked from the rest, because each doctrine logically leads to the next doctrine.

                Allow me to demonstrate what I am talking about using two of the five well-known points of Calvinism.  The two points I will use here are the “T” and “U” in the well-known acronym “TULIP”, which stand for “total depravity” and “unconditional election”.  Total depravity basically means that every aspect of mankind has been corrupted by sin, and that man cannot truly do anything good without God’s help.  Unconditional election means that God alone elects people into the Christian fold; it is by no personal choice or act of will that one is saved.  Notice how these two doctrines are not simply plucked out of the blue.  Total depravity logically leads to unconditional election.  For if man cannot do anything good by any effort of his own, then of course he cannot come to any higher spiritual understanding on his own, either.  If there were some condition that had to be fulfilled in order to become a Christian, then of course totally depraved humans would be incapable of meeting that condition.

                It is crucial to note that these doctrines cannot easily, if at all, be mixed and matched.  You could not believe in total depravity and conditional election, because if humans are totally depraved, then they could not possibly fulfill any condition required for election by their efforts alone.  You could technically believe in partial depravity and unconditional election, but the lack of connection between the two doctrines makes the belief rather odd.  If man is capable of his own good, why would God be so arbitrary as to not reward him for what good he does?  So we see that it ought to be either total depravity and unconditional election or partial depravity and conditional election.

                I have only handled two dichotomies, here.  But the truth is that a thoroughgoing study of the Calvinist and Armenianist doctrine will show that the vast majority of their beliefs are polar like this.  You cannot have both Calvinist doctrine A and Armenianist doctrine B, because the only way you can logically arrive at Armenianist doctrine B is if you believe in Armenianist doctrine A, and even further, Calvinist doctrine A contradicts Armenianist doctrine B.  Calvinism and Armenianism, then, cannot be compared to two baskets of fruit, where a part can be removed from the whole and still be useful as a part.  They are much more comparable to two diverging paths in a wood.  To get to the second brick, you must walk over the first brick, and, of course, you cannot walk in half of this path and half of that path.  We are forced, by logic, to choose one or the other.