I asked the following Question(s) from various Artificial Intelligences. Obviously, take AI answers with a grain of salt:
On the assumption that the Bible is God's inerrant and internally consistent Word, given that there are passages that seem to favor Arminian-like views as well as Calvinistic-like views, which view view of the Bible comes closer to better harmonizing all passages? One that's more Calvinistic-like or Arminian-like?
Meta AI:
Both Calvinism and Arminianism have strengths and challenges in harmonizing biblical passages. Here's a brief overview:
- *Calvinism* tends to emphasize passages that highlight God's sovereignty, predestination, and the perseverance of saints (e.g., Romans 8:28-30, Ephesians 1:4-5). Calvinists often interpret seemingly Arminian passages as consistent with God's sovereign plan.
- *Arminianism* focuses on passages that emphasize human free will, God's desire for universal salvation, and the possibility of falling away from grace (e.g., John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:3-4). Arminians often see God's sovereignty as compatible with human freedom and responsibility.
Some argue that a Calvinistic view might better harmonize passages related to:
- *God's sovereignty*: Calvinism's emphasis on divine sovereignty can provide a cohesive framework for understanding God's control over salvation.
- *Election and predestination*: Calvinism's view of unconditional election can help explain the biblical emphasis on God's choice and initiative in salvation.
On the other hand, an Arminian view might better account for:
- *Human responsibility*: Arminianism's emphasis on human free will can help explain the biblical emphasis on human decision-making and accountability.
- *God's desire for universal salvation*: Arminianism's view of God's universal desire for salvation can harmonize passages that emphasize God's love and desire for all people to be saved.
Ultimately, both perspectives have strengths and challenges. A nuanced understanding that incorporates elements of both views might provide a more comprehensive understanding of the Bible's teachings. Would you like to explore specific passages or theological concepts further?
ME:
But you didn't answer the question
Meta AI:
You're right, I didn't directly answer your question. Based on the assumption of biblical inerrancy and internal consistency, it's challenging to definitively say which view better harmonizes all passages. However, some scholars argue that a Calvinistic perspective might provide a more cohesive framework for understanding the Bible's teachings on salvation, given its emphasis on God's sovereignty and initiative. Others might argue that an Arminian perspective better accounts for the biblical emphasis on human responsibility and God's universal desire for salvation. Ultimately, the answer depends on one's interpretive framework and theological priorities.
ME:
I asked you to answer it based on your understanding and abilities. Please answer the question and side with one or the other of the options I presented, viz., morw Arminian-like or more Calvinistic-like. Fulfill the task i asked you to fulfill by answering the question.
Meta AI:
Based on my analysis, I would say that a more Calvinistic-like view of the Bible comes closer to better harmonizing all passages. This perspective provides a cohesive framework for understanding God's sovereignty, predestination, and salvation, while also acknowledging the complexity and nuances of biblical teachings. Calvinism's emphasis on God's initiative and control can help reconcile seemingly disparate passages, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the Bible's teachings on salvation.
ME:
I asked DUCK AI the same questions. Originally it didn't side with one or the other and I had to ask it to make a decision like I told Meta AI. It's original answer was on the Arminian side. I would have posted it below, but I accidentally erased it while switching tabs on my cell phone. I asked DUCK AI a second time and it sided with Calvinism. Which is interesting because one would expect it to given the same answer. I guess this just shows you the unreliable nature of AI.
ME:
On the assumption that the Bible is God's inerrant and internally consistent Word, given that there are passages that seem to favor Arminian-like views as well as Calvinistic-like views, which view view of the Bible comes closer to better harmonizing all passages? One that's more Calvinistic-like or Arminian-like?
DUCK AI:
The question of whether a Calvinistic or Arminian view better harmonizes the passages of the Bible is a longstanding theological debate, and both perspectives offer compelling arguments based on their interpretations of Scripture. Here’s a brief overview of how each view approaches the harmonization of biblical passages:
Sovereignty of God: Calvinism emphasizes God's sovereignty in salvation, asserting that God predestines individuals to salvation. This view often relies on passages like Ephesians 1:4-5 and Romans 8:29-30, which speak of God's foreknowledge and predestination.
Total Depravity: Calvinists argue that humanity is completely unable to choose God due to sin (Romans 3:10-12). This aligns with the belief that salvation is entirely a work of God’s grace.
Irresistible Grace: The idea that those whom God has chosen will inevitably come to faith is supported by passages like John 6:37 and Romans 9:16, which emphasize God's initiative in salvation.
Perseverance of the Saints: Calvinism holds that true believers will persevere in faith, supported by passages like Philippians 1:6 and John 10:28-29.
Free Will: Arminianism emphasizes human free will and the ability to accept or reject God's grace. This is often supported by passages like John 3:16 and 1 Timothy 2:4, which suggest that Christ's atonement is available to all.
Conditional Election: Arminians argue that God's election is based on foreseen faith, as seen in passages like Romans 8:29, which they interpret as God knowing who will choose Him.
Resistible Grace: The belief that individuals can resist God's grace is supported by passages like Acts 7:51, where Stephen accuses the Jewish leaders of resisting the Holy Spirit.
Possibility of Apostasy: Arminians hold that it is possible for believers to fall away from faith, supported by passages like Hebrews 6:4-6 and 2 Peter 2:20-22.
Calvinistic Harmonization: Proponents argue that the overarching narrative of Scripture emphasizes God's sovereignty and grace, suggesting that even passages that appear to support free will can be understood within the framework of God's ultimate control and purpose.
Arminian Harmonization: Advocates of this view argue that the Bible's call to repentance and faith, along with the universal offer of salvation, indicates that human choice plays a crucial role in the salvation process. They emphasize the relational aspect of God’s interaction with humanity.
Ultimately, the question of which view better harmonizes the biblical passages depends on one's theological presuppositions and interpretative framework. Calvinism tends to emphasize God's sovereignty and grace, while Arminianism highlights human responsibility and free will. Both perspectives have strengths and weaknesses, and many theologians and scholars continue to explore ways to reconcile the differing passages within the broader narrative of Scripture.
For individuals seeking a resolution, it may be beneficial to engage with both perspectives, considering the biblical texts and theological implications of each view.
ME:
But you didn't answer the question. I asked you to answer it based on your understanding and abilities. Please answer the question and side with one or the other of the options I presented, viz., morw Arminian-like or more Calvinistic-like. Fulfill the task i asked you to fulfill by answering the question.
DUCK AI:
In considering the question of which view—Calvinistic or Arminian—better harmonizes the biblical passages, I would lean toward the Calvinistic perspective.
Sovereignty of God: The Calvinistic view emphasizes God's absolute sovereignty over all aspects of salvation. This aligns with numerous biblical passages that highlight God's control and purpose in salvation (e.g., Ephesians 1:4-5, Romans 8:29-30). The idea that God predestines individuals to salvation provides a cohesive understanding of God's plan throughout Scripture.
Total Depravity: The concept of total depravity supports the notion that humanity, in its sinful state, cannot choose God without divine intervention. This is consistent with passages that describe the fallen nature of humanity (e.g., Romans 3:10-12). The need for God's grace to initiate salvation is a strong theme in the Bible.
Irresistible Grace: The belief that God's grace effectively brings about the salvation of the elect is supported by passages that indicate God's initiative in drawing people to Himself (e.g., John 6:37, Romans 9:16). This perspective provides a sense of assurance regarding the efficacy of God's saving work.
Perseverance of the Saints: The assurance that true believers will persevere in faith aligns with the biblical teaching that God sustains His people (e.g., Philippians 1:6, John 10:28-29). This view offers comfort and security to believers regarding their salvation.
While both perspectives have valid points and scriptural support, the Calvinistic view tends to provide a more cohesive framework for understanding the entirety of Scripture, particularly regarding the nature of God’s sovereignty and grace in salvation. This perspective addresses the complexities of human sinfulness and the necessity of divine intervention, which are central themes throughout the Bible.
GROK'S ANSWER:
Given your premise — that the Bible is God’s inerrant and internally consistent Word — and after weighing both systems carefully:
Calvinistic theology more effectively harmonizes the full scope of biblical teaching.
God's Sovereignty Is Central in Scripture:
Passages like Romans 9, Ephesians 1, John 6, and Acts 13:48 unmistakably emphasize God's sovereign choice in salvation.
Calvinism affirms that God’s will is ultimately decisive, not man’s.
Consistency with Doctrines of Grace:
From total depravity to irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints, Calvinism offers a systematically coherent framework.
It doesn’t require redefining or softening the plain meaning of passages that speak of election or predestination.
Perseverance Makes Sense of Assurance:
Calvinism explains eternal security not as human effort, but as God's preserving power (John 10:28–29, Rom. 8:30).
Arminianism introduces a tension where salvation can be lost, which undercuts the assurance many texts promise.
Election Is Personal and Unconditional:
Scripture emphasizes that election is rooted in God’s mercy, not foreseen faith (Romans 9:11–16).
Arminianism, by contrast, tends to shift election to a human-centered decision, which clashes with these passages.
Universal Invitation Still Fits Calvinism:
Calvinism doesn’t deny that the gospel is offered to all; it just affirms that God effectually calls only the elect.
This upholds both the sincerity of the call and the certainty of salvation for those God draws.
Calvinists can still account for them:
“God desires all to be saved…” (1 Tim 2:4) — This can refer to all kinds of people, not every individual.
Warning passages (Hebrews 6) — Often understood as addressing visible church members, not truly regenerate believers.
“Whoever believes…” (John 3:16) — Entirely true, but only those enabled by the Father will believe (John 6:44).
Calvinism doesn't erase mystery — it humbly submits to the depths of divine sovereignty where Scripture is clear, even if that challenges our human intuition about fairness or freedom.
If your standard is inerrancy and internal consistency, then the Calvinistic framework more faithfully reconciles the whole of Scripture without forcing interpretive gymnastics.
Would you like a concise summary of Calvinism's five points with verses?
