Quiz: Are you Calvinist or Arminian?

[Humble_Disciple]

 

[Humble_Disciple]

The main reason why I'd prefer Calvinism over Arminianism is the assurance of salvation which comes from the Calvinist doctrine of irresistible grace:

That the grace of salvation is irresistible is the clear teaching of the multitude of Scripture passages that speak of God efficaciously saving sinners. God does not try to save sinners, depending on their cooperation. He does not attempt to save sinners but stands helplessly by unless they at least exercise their free will. He does not do His best to save sinners, always facing the real possibility that His best is not good enough and that the sinner may effectively resist His efforts to save him. No, God saves sinners, sovereignly, efficaciously, irresistibly. This is the language of the Scriptures from beginning to end...

The believer's assurance depends on the truth of irresistible grace. If it is possible that God's grace can be resisted, that after God has begun his saving work in me, it is still possible that I can resist it and lose it, how can I ever be sure of my salvation? I cannot be. The doctrine of free will and the teaching of resistible grace are cruel doctrines. They strip the child of God of the assurance of salvation. Then he must live in constant doubt and fear whether he will ever be saved. That is frightening! That is paralyzing! That is depressing!
Chapter 5 - Irresistible Grace

The teaching that you can fall away from the faith and still be saved, as some non-Calvinists claim, is nowhere taught in the Bible.

 

[Christopher0121]

I'm Arminian, I'm relatively sure God's a Calvinist.

 

[Fervent]

Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism is true, and to reduce it to such a dichotomy is nothing more than a trick of Calvinists. There is a tension between God's choice in salvation, where He foreknows those whom are saved and serves as the active assurance of their salvation, and man's choice in salvation where each of us in our own conscience accepts or rejects the gospel. In some sense, God chooses us as a sovereign decision yet at the same time each of us willingly chooses our own fate free from coersion of any sort. The operation of such is a mystery and the degree to which each is highlighted depends on which Biblical text we are currently operating under. Calvinists biggest mistake is an attempt to make a single overarching system of theology, thereby reducing the effort to human philosophy rather than bending to Scripture.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

One thing I like about Calvinism is that you can't be a modernist Christian with a low view of scripture and still be a Calvinist.

If you don't believe that Adam was a historical person, by whom all humanity inherited sin and death, that Jesus is fully divine and fully human and offered Himself as the perfect substitute for our sin, and that He physically rose from the dead to conquer death on our behalf, then it's impossible for you to be a Calvinist.

There's no reason to look for proofs of the doctrines of Calvinism in the Bible if you don't believe the Bible is inerrant on these other basic teachings. If you believe you have the free will to reject basic Bible doctrines, then you aren't going to believe that God has elected some to salvation and not others, no matter what the text might say.

A Calvinist might say that God's eternal decree to save some and not others seems unfair, but we should believe it anyway because that's what the Bible teaches. Arminians, on the other hand, typically begin with their own idea of fairness and then read that into the text.

Most Calvinists would become Arminian if it were demonstrated that the Bible definitively proves Arminianism, whereas most Arminians wouldn't accept Calvinism, even if it were definitively proven by the Bible, because it goes against their own standard of fairness.

Anti-Calvinists are usually also ignorant of church history, that the basic doctrines of Calvinism were already taught by Augustine against Pelagius and Luther against Rome. The doctrines we know today as "Calvinism" are only called that because it was John Calvin who popularized them.

This is Augustine on Romans 9:

If election is by foreknowledge, and God foreknew Jacob's faith, how do you prove that he did not elect him for his works? Neither Jacob nor Esau had believed, because they were not yet born and had as yet done neither good nor evil. But God foresaw that Jacob would believe? He could equally well have foreseen that he would do good works. So just as one says he was elected because God foreknew that he was going to believe, another might say that it was rather because of the good works he was to perform, since God foreknew them equally well… If the reason for its not being of works was that they were not yet born, that applies also to faith; for before they were born they had neither faith nor works. The apostle, therefore, did not want us to understand that it was because of God's foreknowledge that the younger was elected to be served by the elder.
God's Purpose According To Election: Paul's Argument in Romans 9

This is from Luther's 97 Theses, which he wrote before his 95 Theses:

29. The best and infallible preparation for grace and the sole disposition toward grace is the eternal election and predestination of God.
30. On the part of man, however, nothing precedes grace except indisposition and even rebellion against grace.
Contend Earnestly: Luther's 97 Theses: Disputation Against Scholastic Theology

Here are quotations from the early church fathers supporting the five points of Calvinism, most of whom from before the time of Augustine:
Calvinism in the Early Church (The Doctrines of Grace taught by the Early Church Fathers) | Reformed Theology at A Puritan's Mind

 

[Paidiske]

I think you might want to be careful with your characterisations, there, Humble_Disciple. For example, one doesn't have to be either "modernist" or have a low view of Scripture to see the Adamic accounts as not literal.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

I think you might want to be careful with your characterisations, there, Humble_Disciple. For example, one doesn't have to be either "modernist" or have a low view of Scripture to see the Adamic accounts as not literal.

Where do you get your doctrine of original sin?

Also, what do you do with the fact that, throughout the New Testament, Adam is referred to as a historical person?

How do you explain Luke 3:38, Acts 17:26, Romans 5:12, and numerous other verses if Adam was not a historical person?

By definition, one is exercising a low view of scripture by insisting that Adam was not a historical person, rather than letting the scriptures speak for themselves.

 

[Paidiske]

Where do you get your doctrine of original sin?

Also, what do you do with the fact that, throughout the New Testament, Adam is referred to as a historical person?

How do you explain Luke 3:38, Acts 17:26, Romans 5:12, and numerous other verses if Adam was not a historical person?

By definition, one is exercising a low view of scripture by insisting that Adam was not a historical person, rather than letting the scriptures speak for themselves.

The assumption that the only way to read a text as imparting truth, is to read it literally, is itself mistaken.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

The assumption that the only way to read a text as imparting truth, is to read it literally, is itself mistaken.

Some parts of the Bible are metaphorical, like Jesus' parables, while others are meant to be taken literally. What matters is the plain meaning of scripture, according to what the authors, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, intended a passage to be interpreted.

How do you explain Luke 3:38, Acts 17:26, Romans 5:12, and numerous other verses of the New Testament if Adam was not a historical person?

You might not believe that Adam was a historical person, but it's clear that the authors of the New Testament, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did.

Also, where do you get your doctrine of original sin, or do you deny that doctrine as well, in addition to denying Biblical inerrancy?

Rather than allowing modernism to dictate your interpretation of scripture, I hope that you will pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to reveal to you the plain meaning of the text.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

 

[Paidiske]

Some parts of the Bible are metaphorical, like Jesus' parables, while others are meant to be taken literally. What matters is the plain meaning of scripture, according to what the authors, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, intended a passage to be interpreted.

How do you explain Luke 3:38, Acts 17:26, Romans 5:12, and numerous other verses of the New Testament if Adam was not a historical person?

You might not believe that Adam was a historical person, but it's clear that the authors of the New Testament, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did.

Also, where do you get your doctrine of original sin, or do you deny that doctrine as well, in addition to denying Biblical inerrancy?

Rather than allowing modernism to dictate your interpretation of scripture, I hope that you will pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to reveal to you the plain meaning of the text.

You are making a lot of assumptions about my views, based on a couple of posts. I am not posting here particularly about my own views, simply noting the breadth of Christian thinking on these issues and that I think you are perhaps misunderstanding the position of some others.

Your last line, however, is particularly condescending and presumptive.

 

[Taodeching]

Where do you get your doctrine of original sin?

Whom said the belief in original sin is a must as you might understand it?

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Whom said the belief in original sin is a must as you might understand it?

How do you understand original sin, and do you believe it's taught in the Bible?

 

[Taodeching]

How do you understand original sin, and do you believe it's taught in the Bible?

As the Orthodox do, which is not original sin like in the west but Ancestral sin. Ancestral sin states that while we bear the consequences of that sin it is only Adam and Eve that bear the sole guilt. We are only guilty of our own sins that we commit

 

[Humble_Disciple]

As the Orthodox do, which is not original sin like in the west but Ancestral sin. Ancestral sin states that while we bear the consequences of that sin it is only Adam and Eve that bear the sole guilt. We are only guilty of our own sins that we commit

Can you please explain the practical difference? There doesn't appear to be one.

Instead of original sin, Orthodoxy uses the term ancestral sin to describe the effect of Adam’s sin on mankind. We do this to make a key distinction; we didn’t sin in Adam (as the Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12 implies). Rather we sin because Adam’s sin made us capable of doing so.
Original Sin vs. Ancestral Sin

While the Orthodox have always rejected the concept of “imputed sin” (i.e. we are condemned for Adam’s sin), they accept that we are born with a debilitating sinful nature that makes us unable to willfully choose God without divine assistance. Therefore, in order for one to make “right use of their free-will” there must be some type of “mediating” grace that makes the person able to choose God.
An Eastern Orthodox View of Predestination

Whether you call it ancestral sin or original sin, both doctrines teach that we inherited death and a tendency to sin from Adam.

 

[Navair2]

@disciple Clint :
I wasn't able to take the quiz due to not being a paying member of IPL.

But to respond to the OP,
I would be called ( by those who oppose the doctrines ) a "5 Point Calvinist" or "High Calvinist" based on my understanding of Scripture gained over the past 18 years of study.
In other words, I am in full agreement with all five of the points that were formulated against the Five Articles of the Remonstrants ( 1610 ), from the Synod of Dordt held in 1618-1619.

I was raised as a nominal "4 Point Arminian" in the sense of being what is now known as a "Traditionalist / Provisionist", where 4 of the 5 "points" of Evangelical Arminianism, as found here:

An Outline of the FACTS of Arminianism vs. The TULIP of Calvinism

...were taught at the Baptist church where I first believed on Christ during the preaching of God's word in 1978 at the age of 12.
I no longer hold to most of what I was taught back then.

Rather,
I hold that everything embodied in those "Five Points" I see the Lord Jesus teaching in the "Gospels"...
As well as the apostle Paul teaching, the apostle John teaching and the apostle Peter teaching throughout the epistles to the churches.


May God bless you in many ways.

 

[Taodeching]

Whether you call it ancestral sin or original sin, both doctrines teach that we inherited death and a tendency to sin from Adam.

Not really. Ancestral sin is that we do not inherit the guilt but just the consequence of death nothing more. We don't inherit a tendency to sin nor are we totally depraved. We do not have a tendency to sin like in Calvinism where that is all men do because they are totally depraved, rather there is an inclination to sin but we don't have to. Unlike Calvinism which makes all man totally depraved Eastern Orthodox believe that all humans are born with an undistorted image of God.

In the west sin is seen in legal terms death is a debt and crime against God; However in the east it is seen as missing the mark. Basically it is a rejection of St. Augustine's teaching which Calvin used wholesale.

I may not be explaining it great here is a snippet from a larger article:

Protestantism, in its teaching on original sin, as in many other points, fell into the opposite extreme. In its notion, man's Fall perverted human nature to such an extent that not even a trace of the powers and abilities bestowed by the Creator remained in him, and all his desires are directed solely toward what is evil and sinful. Man, according to Luther's expression, was turned, as it were, into a pillar of salt, like Lot's wife; he became a soulless block and even worse, because a block does not act and does not oppose, while man opposes the action of divine grace. It is true that many Protestants later acknowledged their extremeness in this teaching and some drew near even to the Orthodox view, but others, unfortunately, fell into rationalism and went as far as a complete rejection of original sin and even the very historical fact of the fall of our progenitors.

The Protestant view of original sin contradicts all those places in Sacred Scripture wherein an appeal to man's free will is contained for correction and salvation, and wherein, consequently, it is confirmed that man did not pervert his nature so much that he cannot take any part in the work of his salvation (see Matthew 16:24; 19:17-21).
​

Source: Original Sin | RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CATHEDRAL OF ST.JOHN THE BAPTIST

If you were to ask me to summarize I would say I totally reject the western understanding of original sin. You also may go in the the Orthodox forum here and get more info about Ancestral sin. In fact I will start a thread and link it here.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

In addition,
I am not persuaded of much of anything other than the so-called "Five Points of Calvinism" when it comes to "Reformed Theology";
One of those is A-millennialism, which I do not see anywhere in the Scriptures.

What do you think of limited atonement, in light of the fact that Calvin himself doesn't appear to have taught it?

How Calvinistic was John Calvin? What did he teach concerning the extent of the atonement? Let us ponder his own words:

Isaiah 53:12- "I approve of the ordinary reading, that He alone bore the punishment of many, because on Him was laid the guilt of the whole world. It is evident from other passages, and especially from the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, that many sometimes denotes all."
Mark 14:24- "The word many does not mean a part of the world only, but the whole human race." In other words, Christ’s blood was shed for the whole human race.
Matthew 20:28- "‘Many’ is used, not for a definite number, but for a large number, in that He sets Himself over against all others. And this is its meaning also in Rom. 5:15, where Paul is not talking of a part of mankind but of the whole human race."
John 1:29- "And when he says the sin OF THE WORLD, He extends this favour indiscriminately to the whole human race....all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God and need to be reconciled to Him....Now our duty is, to embrace the benefit which is offered to all, that each of us may be convinced that there is nothing to hinder him from obtaining reconciliation in Christ, provided that he comes to him by...faith."
John 3:16- "He has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers....He shows Himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when He invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ."
Romans 5:18- "He makes this favor common to all, because it is propoundable to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all (i.e. in the experience); for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive Him."
2 Corinthians 5:19- God "shows Himself to be reconciled to the whole world" and Calvin goes on to say that the "whole world" means "all men without exception."
Galatians 5:12- "It is the will of God that we should seek the salvation of all men without exception, as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world."
Colossians 1:15- "This redemption was procured by the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of His death all the sins of the world have been expiated."
Hebrews 5:9- "He (the writer of Hebrews) has inserted the universal term ‘to all’ to show that no one is excluded from this salvation who proves to be attentive and obedient to the Gospel of Christ."
Calvin even taught that the lost were purchased by Christ's blood: "It is no small matter to have the souls perish who were bought by the blood of Christ" (The Myster of Godliness, p. 83).
Skip's Lighthouse: CALVIN'S FAVORITE FLOWER WAS NOT A T.U.L.I.P.

Neither did the Synod of Dort appear to teach limited atonement:

They refer to both Calvin's claim that "It is also a fact, without controversy, that Christ came to atone for the sins 'of the whole world'"[7] and to Article 3 of the Second Main Point of Doctrine of the Synod of Dort which states that "This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.".[8]
Limited atonement - Wikipedia

I would describe myself as a four-point Calvinist.
What is Amyraldism / Four-Point Calvinism? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Navair2]

What do you think of limited atonement, in light of the fact that Calvin himself doesn't appear to have taught it?

I am in full agreement with it, and I do not take any cues from John Calvin or other Calvinistic preachers and teachers when it comes to my own understanding of the doctrine.

I understand it strictly from my studies of God's word.

Neither did the Synod of Dort appear to teach limited atonement:

I'll have to look at that again, as to what the actual Conons of Dordt said.
But I can tell you that I am fully persuaded of what is called "Limited Atonement" ( I call it "Particular Redemption").

I would describe myself as a four-point Calvinist.

For most of the past 18 years ( until the last three years or so ), so was I.

 

[Bobber]

The main reason why I'd prefer Calvinism over Arminianism is the assurance of salvation which comes from the Calvinist doctrine of irresistible grace:

So what do you say to people I've talked to through the years who feel lost and condemned because they don't feel a force with desire making them want to serve God anymore. In other words they don't feel anything irresistible at all. They don't consider that repentance has nothing to do with feeling anything but you just do it. Calvinists teachings I believe causes them to stumble.