What Calvinists and Arminians DO have in common

Hammster said:

It's not an either/or. We can debate over our differences and still evangelize together.

Click to expand...

Except for, e.g., the hard-core Calvinists who can't help but perceive Arminianism as a gospel of works, and therefore a false gospel.

Then there are those who are *slightly* less hard-core:

"Arminians are Christians, Barely, says R.C. Sproul and J.I. Packer
In the introduction to his book, Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will, R.C. Sproul, Sr., when asked if he thinks Arminians are Christians, answers, "'Yes, barely.' They are Christians by what we call a felicitous inconsistency."1 He agrees with J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston, who insist that Arminians, because they reject the (as yet unproven and eminently philosophical) theory that regeneration must precede faith, they "thereby deny man's utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all."2


From here.

NorrinRadd said:

Except for, e.g., the hard-core Calvinists who can't help but perceive Arminianism as a gospel of works, and therefore a false gospel.

Then there are those who are *slightly* less hard-core:

"Arminians are Christians, Barely, says R.C. Sproul and J.I. Packer
In the introduction to his book, Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will, R.C. Sproul, Sr., when asked if he thinks Arminians are Christians, answers, "'Yes, barely.' They are Christians by what we call a felicitous inconsistency."1 He agrees with J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston, who insist that Arminians, because they reject the (as yet unproven and eminently philosophical) theory that regeneration must precede faith, they "thereby deny man's utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all."2


From here.

Click to expand...

NorrinRadd. Sproul is only a mere man. I have read his books so I know where you are coming from.

Start a new thread and I will contribute. But this thread is about what we have in common.

Peace to you.

JackSparrow said:

NorrinRadd. Sproul is only a mere man. I have read his books so I know where you are coming from.

Start a new thread and I will contribute. But this thread is about what we have in common.

Peace to you.

Click to expand...

Thanks, but I almost never start new threads.

Yes, I know the original intent of this thread. It appeared obvious that the areas of commonality had already been well covered, and that offshoots were being pursued. My apologies if I contributed to unwelcome rabbit-trails.

What's the difference between Classical Arminianism and Wesleyan Arminianism?

WisdomTree said:

What's the difference between Classical Arminianism and Wesleyan Arminianism?

Click to expand...

Same with different varieties of Calvinism. Both Calvinism and Arminianism have evolved over the last 400 years.

Try this site.
Society of Evangelical Arminians

WisdomTree said:

What's the difference between Classical Arminianism and Wesleyan Arminianism?

Click to expand...

The easiest distinctive between the two is that Wesleyan holds to Perseverance of the Saints as if it is somehow more gentlemanly of God to once someone has come to them of their own free will for him to override that and keep them even if they don' wanna be there.

Sproul - "while man’s freedom, though real, is limited and bounded"

Arminians - "while man’s freedom, though real, is limited and bounded"

I wonder how Lutherans will fit into all this...

NorrinRadd said:

Except for, e.g., the hard-core Calvinists who can't help but perceive Arminianism as a gospel of works, and therefore a false gospel.

Then there are those who are *slightly* less hard-core:

"Arminians are Christians, Barely, says R.C. Sproul and J.I. Packer
In the introduction to his book, Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will, R.C. Sproul, Sr., when asked if he thinks Arminians are Christians, answers, "'Yes, barely.' They are Christians by what we call a felicitous inconsistency."1 He agrees with J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston, who insist that Arminians, because they reject the (as yet unproven and eminently philosophical) theory that regeneration must precede faith, they "thereby deny man's utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all."2


From here.

Click to expand...

For someone who reveres Anselm and lists Thomas Aquinas in his roll call of "heroes of the Christian Faith," I find it surprising that he considers the gulf between his view and those of Arminians, so wide. Arminians share that same lineage and hold roughly to the same understanding of satisfaction, and hold roughly the same doctrine of God (because both largely inherited this through Aquinas' philosophical construal of God's nature and energies). However, given that both share the same basic understanding of God's essence, I think he may have a point that Calvinism is more consistent with it.

But to leap to saying that Arminians are "barely" Christians is absurd.

Arminians are closer to his own beliefs than are the majority of the church fathers, many of whom he also holds up as heroes (like St. Athanasius). If Arminians are barely there, then Athanasius and Chrysostom must really be in the deep fryer.

I spent years reading and listening to Sproul. I appreciated his teaching and still do. But he would leap to absurd generalizations at times, such as (apparently) what's cited above. Or when he quipped that "the Orthodox are even more sacerdotal than Rome, and are allergic to doing theology." I would expect more from a scholar of his caliber.

WisdomTree said:

I wonder how Lutherans will fit into all this...

Click to expand...

In my limited experience, Lutherans tend to keep a safe distance from both. They generally retained a more catholic approach to the faith and still hold to a sacramental view of our life in Christ.

I have read that Luther was quite wholly given over to predestination (but wasn't Aquinas, also? I've met self-described "Thomists" who have views of election not unlike Calvinists') but he also held to a more classical view of atonement...more "christus victor" and less "penal satisfaction." They always say they're more "open" to mystery...don't come down definitively on whether salvation can be lost, etc.