Can salvation depend on your position on Calvinism, Arminianism or Free Grace?

[Job8]

So, like the OP title asks - who thinks that it matters eternally what one believes about these positions?

The short answer is NOT AT ALL. Here is what God wants to know:
1. Do you recognize that you are a sinner and that you cannot save yourself?
2. Do you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is God who became Man to die for your sins?
3. Do you believe that He did indeed die for your sins and rose again for your justification?
4. Have you truly repented (turned away from all sins and idols)?
5. Have you truly received Christ as your Lord and Savior?
6. Do you know that you've been born again?

Those who have been saved by grace are commanded to be baptized as believers, so baptism by immersion is evidence that you have been saved by grace. Refusal to be baptized is evidence that you are still in your sins.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The short answer is NOT AT ALL. Here is what God wants to know:

Do you mean that God doesn't know the answers, or that He wants the person to know these things:

1. Do you recognize that you are a sinner and that you cannot save yourself?
2. Do you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is God who became Man to die for your sins?
3. Do you believe that He did indeed die for your sins and rose again for your justification?

These are required for saving faith, but being saved from the lake of fire is missing. iow, one must have a purpose or goal of faith (1 Pet 1:9). We must know why we are believing in Christ.

4. Have you truly repented (turned away from all sins and idols)?

This is an impossible condition and is not required to be saved.

5. Have you truly received Christ as your Lord and Savior?

Those who have believed have received Christ. Jn 1:12, 1 Tim 1:16)

6. Do you know that you've been born again?

Not unless the new believer is taught that they have been. One doesn't need to know they have been born again to be born again. One is born again through faith in Christ. They may or may not understand that. If they aren't told that, how could they know?

Those who have been saved by grace are commanded to be baptized as believers, so baptism by immersion is evidence that you have been saved by grace. Refusal to be baptized is evidence that you are still in your sins.

I studied every occurrence of people believing in Acts, 33 in all. Of them, 23 times Luke noted that people believed in Christ, and 9 times he mentioned that those who believed were baptized. So it should be clear that the Bible does not teach that baptism by immersion ( or any other method) is required to be saved.

Even Paul, arguably the greatest evangelist of the first century said this: "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void." 1 Cor 1:17

It seems obvious that if baptism were a necessary part of getting saved, Paul would have baptized in every case. But he makes the point that Christ didn't send him to baptize but to preach the gospel. That's how people get saved: by believing the gospel that is preached to them.

 

[Look Up]

There is so much heat generated with this topic - you'd think it was the most important doctrine of all.

So, like the OP title asks - who thinks that it matters eternally what one believes about these positions?

A good, but difficult question. There are boundaries of belief content beyond which I--well, probably most of us--would say a person is not a Christian, usually willingly so on the part of the non-Christian. I think in particular of the tests of faith in 1 John such as confessing that Jesus came in the flesh and is the Son of God.

And then there are doctrines about which I think most professing Christians would say salvation does not depend--millenial position or certain views of baptism come to mind.

Doctrines touching on salvation and the nature of God as it relates to salvation is a touchy and difficult middle between these above sides, or so it seems to me.

My hope is that there are many whose doctrine of salvation is heterodox to some degree but who are saved nonetheless, in part I think because salvation is existential, experiential, and accomplished (for the moment let us say synergistically or monergistically) by God. And surely there are those in one soteriological camp or another confessionally who are not saved.

This is not to say the debates are unimportant or unimportant for salvation; salvation is rather important and depends in part on what is believed, content which is important to the God who saves in Jesus Christ.

What is also important, I think the apostolic record would suggest for example, is the moral character evident in the way the salvation doctrine is argued--contending for the faith in uncontentious manner, if you will. Being gentle and humble in one's argument, even if at times forceful. In the absence of the fruits of salvation or where impatience or disrespect is evident in the argument, the manner of argument contradicts something about the salvation doctrine ostensibly argued.

P.S. Helpful as OzSpen's summary chart "Calvinism, Lutheranism, Arminianism, 'The Rest of Us'" may be, I do not think it accurately or fairly represents Calvinism at least as I see it, to speak as a Calvinist. But that may be another story. Others from other positions may weigh in about the representations of their positions too.

 

[FireDragon76]

Even Paul, arguably the greatest evangelist of the first century said this: "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void." 1 Cor 1:17

That doesn't prove much, if anything about the normativity of baptism. This is just Paul emphasizing a rhetorical point. You should know better than to exegete a verse in isolation, especially because that passage does emphasize the one baptism of all Christians.

It seems obvious that if baptism were a necessary part of getting saved, Paul would have baptized in every case.

And yet Paul does baptize, in Acts 16 he baptizes Lydia in Philippi.

 

[Job8]

Do you mean that God doesn't know the answers, or that He wants the person to know these things:

God is not concerned with whether a sinner believes that Calvin, or Arminius, or any theologian or denomination is right or wrong. The OP made that the question, and the answer is "NOT AT ALL".

... being saved from the lake of fire is missing. iow, one must have a purpose or goal of faith (1 Pet 1:9). We must know why we are believing in Christ.

I already pointed out in point one that a person must acknowledge that he is a sinner and cannot save himself, therefore he needs the Savior. That is all that God is concerned about -- "Lord, be merciful to me A SINNER". Almost all people know about Hell, and they use it as a profanity daily.

an impossible condition and is not required to be saved.

Really? God does not demand or command that which is impossible. Please note carefully (Acts 17:30): And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Did you notice that last phrase?

the new believer is taught that they have been. One doesn't need to know they have been born again to be born again. One is born again through faith in Christ. They may or may not understand that. If they aren't told that, how could they know?

1. They would read Jn chapter 3 at the very least since Jn 3:16 is basic.
2. They would experience a change in their hearts and minds
3. They would take a new direction in their lives
Thus they would know (as well as from Scripture) that they have been born again.

I studied every occurrence of people believing in Acts, 33 in all. Of them, 23 times Luke noted that people believed in Christ, and 9 times he mentioned that those who believed were baptized. So it should be clear that the Bible does not teach that baptism by immersion ( or any other method) is required to be saved.

Please read what I said. Water baptism is evidence that you have been saved. Not that baptism is required to save you. Do you get the difference? If the Bible did not teach baptism by immersion then the word baptizo would not be used (study this word), and secondly people (including Christ) would not be going into the water and coming out of it. Since water baptism symbolizes death, burial and resurrection (Rom 6) the Bible clearly teaches baptism by immersion.

Even Paul, arguably the greatest evangelist of the first century said this: "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void." 1 Cor 1:17

We should not take things out of context. Paul's mission was preaching the Gospel. Baptism was secondary but just as important. Indeed Paul himself was baptized three days after he was saved. And each time we read the Great Commission, baptism is an integral part of making disciples. And the apostles (including Paul and his companions) were consistently and invariably baptizing believers.

 

[FreeGrace2]

That doesn't prove much, if anything about the normativity of baptism. This is just Paul emphasizing a rhetorical point. You should know better than to exegete a verse in isolation, especially because that passage does emphasize the one baptism of all Christians.

The "one baptism" refers not to water immersion, but the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which all who believe in Jesus Christ for eternal life receive.

And yet Paul does baptize, in Acts 16 he baptizes Lydia in Philippi.

Though rarely. And please accept the fact that in Acts, of the 33 times Luke mentions people putting their faith in Christ, only 9 times was baptism mentioned. That means there were 23 times when baptism wasn't.

Water baptism is a ritual. Spirit baptism is real. They are different and all believers should know the difference.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
"Do you mean that God doesn't know the answers, or that He wants the person to know these things:"

God is not concerned with whether a sinner believes that Calvin, or Arminius, or any theologian or denomination is right or wrong. The OP made that the question, and the answer is "NOT AT ALL".

I don't see any relevance in this response to what I said.

I said this:
" Have you truly repented (turned away from all sins and idols)?"
Really? God does not demand or command that which is impossible. Please note carefully (Acts 17:30): And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Did you notice that last phrase?[/QUOTE]
Yes I did. And the Bible does NOT teach "sinless perfection" after salvation, which is the conclusion of your view. No one can "turn away from ALL sin". Because we still have our sin natures and we still sin. Paul made that crystal clear in Rom 6 and 7.

Please read what I said. Water baptism is evidence that you have been saved.

Yes, I ddid read your post. And your statement is still wrong. Many people have been baptized who aren't saved. It CAN be an evidence.

Not that baptism is required to save you. Do you get the difference? If the Bible did not teach baptism by immersion then the word baptizo would not be used (study this word), and secondly people (including Christ) would not be going into the water and coming out of it. Since water baptism symbolizes death, burial and resurrection (Rom 6) the Bible clearly teaches baptism by immersion.

Apparently your view does not distinguish between water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

We should not take things out of context. Paul's mission was preaching the Gospel. Baptism was secondary but just as important.

Where did I say that water baptism wasn't important? Please don't misunderstand me.

Indeed Paul himself was baptized three days after he was saved. And each time we read the Great Commission, baptism is an integral part of making disciples. And the apostles (including Paul and his companions) were consistently and invariably baptizing believers.

Do you understand the difference between immersion and the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

Recall John's words: “I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” Mark 1:8

 

[bling]

There is so much heat generated with this topic - you'd think it was the most important doctrine of all.

So, like the OP title asks - who thinks that it matters eternally what one believes about these positions?

First off: God saves, so I cannot tell you who specifically is saved or not saved. I can take the evidence given about an individual and the scripture description of who is and is not saved, but it is up to God and God judges the hearts of people which I cannot see.

False teachers are condemned in scripture and seem to not be part of the saved, so how much “wrong” can you teach and not be considered a false teacher?

Lots of the Pharisees in the first century while Christ was around taught mostly the truth with just the wrong emphasis on love and obedience to rules, so where they false teachers?

If someone presents God as “lacking” in Love in any way (not loving those that are lost) are they presenting a false god?

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes I did. And the Bible does NOT teach "sinless perfection" after salvation, which is the conclusion of your view. No one can "turn away from ALL sin". Because we still have our sin natures and we still sin.

"Sin nature" is not the word used in Greek, and it's misleading, because it implies that human nature is evil, which is incoherent with most Christian theologies. The Greek word used is more accurately translated flesh.

Yes, I ddid read your post. And your statement is still wrong. Many people have been baptized who aren't saved.

Oh really? How do you judge this? That seems very presumptuous of you.

 

[FreeGrace2]

"Sin nature" is not the word used in Greek, and it's misleading, because it implies that human nature is evil, which is incoherent with most Christian theologies. The Greek word used is more accurately translated flesh.

Regardless of what words are used to describe it, believers have 2 natures. The sinful one they were born with, and the new nature that they received when they believed in Christ. It's called regeneration, the new birth, being born again. And I proved it from Scripture; Romans 6 and 7 and the struggle between the 2 natures.

Oh really? How do you judge this? That seems very presumptuous of you.

Salvation is by faith in Christ. Those who have believed are to be baptized. How does it seem presumptuous to say that there are those who have been baptized but never believed. I'd say that's rather naive.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Lots of the Pharisees in the first century while Christ was around taught mostly the truth with just the wrong emphasis on love and obedience to rules, so where they false teachers?

How many times did Jesus call the Pharisees hypocrites? Many. They twisted the truth. They never taught the truth, as you claim. They were absolutely FALSE TEACHERS. We know this because of what Jesus said about them:

Matt 23:13, 15 - 13“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. 15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

Matt 23:27 - 7“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean.

Does this sound like they "taught mostly the truth"?? Jesus directly told them they weren't entering the kingdom, and they were shutting men out of it as well.

John 5:29, 40 - “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life."

 

[FireDragon76]

Regardless of what words are used to describe it, believers have 2 natures. The sinful one they were born with, and the new nature that they received when they believed in Christ. It's called regeneration, the new birth, being born again. And I proved it from Scripture; Romans 6 and 7 and the struggle between the 2 natures.

The problem with that is the Council of Chalcedon accepted by the whole Church, stated that Christ has two natures, one divine and one human. Humans have only one nature, created by God, and thus it is good, because God is not the author of evil. "Sinful nature" muddies the water here.

Believers do not have two natures, as they are only human. There is the "Old Adam" and the indwelling Christ through the Holy Spirit, but the Old Adam is not necessarily a different nature. It is the flesh that is dominated by evil, but through the Holy Spirit, the person of the believer is being transformed. But still the flesh dominated by evil remains, so there is a struggle between flesh and Spirit in every believer.

Salvation is by faith in Christ. Those who have believed are to be baptized. How does it seem presumptuous to say that there are those who have been baptized but never believed. I'd say that's rather naive.

Because baptism gives the gift of faith and the Holy Spirit.

I look at Baptism as God's promise, not a mere empty symbol. Your belief that people that are baptized as a child do not have faith is presumptuous. You look for external works or pious attitudes, and thus condemn a great many Christians throughout history. There are so many pastoral problems with that, leading to religious emotionalism and judgmentalism.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The problem with that is the Council of Chalcedon accepted by the whole Church, stated that Christ has two natures, one divine and one human.

First, I care not a bit about what any council comes up with. My interest is in what the Bible declares, not what man declares. Second, yes, Jesus Christ was fully divine and fully human. That is called the hypostatic union.

Humans have only one nature, created by God, and thus it is good, because God is not the author of evil. "Sinful nature" muddies the water here.

This is total confusion. Man was born with a corrupted nature, which IS sinful, per Romans 5. Thanks to Adam.

When a person believes in Christ, they are said to be born again. Jn 3:3, 7, 1 Pet 1:23 That means another nature. We still have the corrupted nature, because Paul addressed the struggle between the 2 natures in Romans 6 and 7.

Believers do not have two natures, as they are only human.

Why would anyone think that the only 2 kinds of natures are human and divine? Please don't confuse Jesus' 2 natures with the believer's 2 natures. They are not equated or related.

There is the "Old Adam" and the indwelling Christ through the Holy Spirit, but the Old Adam is not necessarily a different nature.

The "old Adam" is a reference to our human nature, the one we got from Adam. And Romans 5 refutes your notion that it isn't sinful. It sure is.

The indwelling of Christ occurs NOT in our "old Adam" nature, which is corrupted and sinful, but in our new nature, the one we get when we are BORN AGAIN.

2 Cor 5:17 - Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.

What does it mean to be "a new creature" if not having a new nature?

It is the flesh that is dominated by evil, but through the Holy Spirit, the person of the believer is being transformed. But still the flesh dominated by evil remains, so there is a struggle between flesh and Spirit in every believer.

And all believers are said to be BORN AGAIN and are NEW CREATURES. Denying these facts doesn't remove them.

Because baptism gives the gift of faith and the Holy Spirit.

First, what verse claims or teaches this? Second, which baptism is being referred to here?

I look at Baptism as God's promise, not a mere empty symbol.

Uh, who's talking about "empty symbols" here? Please don't demonize my views with false descriptions.

Your belief that people that are baptized as a child do not have faith is presumptuous.

It is totally presumptuous to claim that this is my belief. I was baptized as a child, but as one who had believed in Jesus Christ for eternal life. Can infants believe in Christ? No, they cannot. All they do is eat, sleep, poop, and cry.

Baptism is for believers ONLY. There are no examples of anyone being baptized before they believed.

You look for external works or pious attitudes, and thus condemn a great many Christians throughout history.

More presumption on your part as to what I believe. A Christian is one who HAS believed in Jesus Christ for eternal life.

There are so many pastoral problems with that, leading to religious emotionalism and judgmentalism.

There's certainly been a lot of judgmentalism on your part with what has been misunderstood as my views.

 

[Sine Nomine]

What m

There is so much heat generated with this topic - you'd think it was the most important doctrine of all.

So, like the OP title asks - who thinks that it matters eternally what one believes about these positions?

What matters most is Christ's position. One is either "known" by him and is "in him" or one is not. How this knowledge comes about is likely of little concern to him. He stands at the door and knocks, how the door is opened is described differently by experience and understanding. Christ simply goes through open doors to abide. To argue about the door itself is interesting and I'm certain much is even meaningful and instructive, but it's still just a door. The guest is so much more.....

 

[Butch5]

There is so much heat generated with this topic - you'd think it was the most important doctrine of all.

So, like the OP title asks - who thinks that it matters eternally what one believes about these positions?

I think they're both wrong.

 

[Sine Nomine]

I think they're both wrong.

Both Calvinism, Armenianism, and Free Grace?? Is there another basic position to consider?

 

[Butch5]

Both Calvinism, Armenianism, and Free Grace?? Is there another basic position to consider?

I think many consider Arminianism and free grace the same or similar. I think this back and forth between Calvinism and Arminianism is part of the reason there is so much error in Christianity. It seems to me that each side tries to disprove the other and in the process the Scriptures get mutilated. The Calvinist says the elect are chosen before the foundation of the world, taking Ephesians 1 out of context and the Arminian says that God looked through time or foreknew who would choose Him, an idea that has no Scriptural support. I would submit that both of these are wrong.

Another position that could considered is what was originally taught. When we have passages of Scripture that don't align with our doctrine then the doctrine is wrong. It's not mystery, It's not a paradox, it's an error.

I don't believe one can find in Scripture a single plain statement that states any one of the five points of Calvinism. Likewise, Arminianism agrees in part with Calvinism so if Calvinism is wrong so then is Arminianism.

 

[Winepress777]

There is so much heat generated with this topic - you'd think it was the most important doctrine of all.

So, like the OP title asks - who thinks that it matters eternally what one believes about these positions?

Of course not. My salvation depends on this, just as it has on all Saints since Christ, long before those silly arguments came up...

1Co_1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.


Eph_2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved


2Ti_1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,


Tit_3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

 

[FreeGrace2]

Both Calvinism, Armenianism, and Free Grace?? Is there another basic position to consider?

I think, because of the word "both", the statement wasn't directed at free grace theology.

 

[RDKirk]

No.

All of us have some theological error whether we like or not. If we deny for instance the Trinity or the reserruction I would question if that person is truly saved or not.

I'm not so sure about the Trinity. I accept the basic propositions of Trinitarian doctrine myself, but I've also heard it expounded far enough beyond the Nicean propositions to make that preaching deniable.