Arminians

[bradfordl]

"right and wrong theologies"...? I think that's a bit too judgmental for me.

And that's a bit too pluralistic for me.

For future reference: If A states that 2+2=4, and B states that 2+3=4, one of the two can be right and the other wrong (which is the case), or both can be wrong, but both can never be right. So there is right theology and there is wrong theology. That is not judgement (though good judgement should be used to determine it) but fact.

If there is no right or wrong, what is your question? Or rather, why bother asking it? If what's right for you may be wrong for me and vice-versa, you have nothing to say to anyone about anything.

 

[Koey]

Oh I agree that there are heresies, but I don't think that Arminius and Calvin saw each other in that light.

 

[Arc]

Do Arminians teach salvation by works? If yes why?

No, biblical examples of salvation show that faith precedes salvation. One notable example is John 3:16 "whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life"

and

John 20:30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

Justification, and integral part of the salvation process is defined this way by Paul:

Romans 4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness

Clearly, faith (the act of believing) is not only not considered a work, but it is contrasted against work. Paul focuses squarely on what Abraham did, namely believe God and not try to earn favor by works.

To charge non-Calvinists with the view that they are saved by works because they "believe" God (calling it a meritorious work), is to lay an un-biblical charge against non-Calvinists.

Believing does not earn salvation, Christ earned our salvation by His own merits. When someone believes the Gospel; "it" is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes (Romans 1:16). It's not the power of God unto salvation for people to believe. So faith is the means of accessing the Grace God has given: (Romans 5:2 through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand)

But what about this kind of passage:

Matt 11:27 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.


So what kind of person does Christ reveal/manifest this to?

John 16:8 And when He [the Holy Spirit] has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.


Jesus mentioned this previously here:

John 14:15 “If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.

John 14:21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”

Now Judas asks an obvious question:

John 14:22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, “Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?”

Good question. Why do some "believe unto salvation" and receive the Holy Spirit? (An earnest of our inheritance) And others do not?

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.

The manifestation of who Christ is to the world is dictated by and inward faith, a belief in God's word about His Son. This inward faith is expressed outwardly as love. Interestingly, this seems to be done after a response from man.

Now to call this inward belief a work would be to contradict the very words of Paul in Romans 4. Man is depraved but that does not mean he can never respond any more than Peter being a mortal prevented him from walking on the water. When Jesus said "come" Peter was enabled, but once he began to doubt he also sank. Faith comes by hearing. Peter heard and believed. When Peter sank Jesus asked why he doubted. What a strange question to ask if Jesus thought that faith was simply something abstract that God gives. Sure, faith is a gift. A gift is something that can be used/accepted or it can be rejected.

God resists the proud, but gives Grace to the humble. God doesn't give grace to the proud and makes them humble. Again, the person must respond.

 

[Koey]

To me this whole Arminian-Calvinist debate seems to be arguing over minutia. Don't both believe in salvation through Christ alone? Don't both believe that the dogmas of the church ought to be what Christ taught, not what either Calvin's followers or Arminius' followers teach?

Does this whole debate not make a pope out of those who teach Calvinism or Arminianism?

 

[GrinningDwarf]

To me this whole Arminian-Calvinist debate seems to be arguing over minutia.

Some people might think so. I don't.

Don't both believe in salvation through Christ alone?

That's a matter of debate! Reformed folk definitely do; a lot of Arminians think they do, but listen carefully to their position and it's Christ alone plus my decision to follow Him. They would probably disagree with my observation here...and I think those Arminians could very well be saved in spite of their views on these doctrines. They just havn't really taken their views out to their logical conclusions.

Don't both believe that the dogmas of the church ought to be what Christ taught, not what either Calvin's followers or Arminius' followers teach?

Both sides claim that. I think only one side really does.

Does this whole debate not make a pope out of those who teach Calvinism or Arminianism?

Not necessarily, but I suppose it could in individual's minds.

 

[Koey]

Logical conclusions? Logic? Since when is being logical a requirement for salvation? I think that this is making an idol of intellectualism, rather than focusing on faith in Christ.

I see your comments as making a papal infallibility of Calvinist logic. I frankly don't see EITHER Calvinist or Arminian logic as infallible. I only see the Bible as infallible.

Have you created a new papacy of Calvinism and a new infallibility doctrine of Calvinist "logic"?

 

[bradfordl]

Have you created a new papacy of Calvinism and a new infallibility doctrine of Calvinist "logic"?

Logic is not"calvinist". Logic stands alone and without it you are incoherent. The Logos, the Word, is purely logical because God Himself is purely logical. His Word could not be communicated to you without logical coherence. To reject logic is to embrace chaos. God is not the author of confusion.

 

[Koey]

Logic is not"calvinist". Logic stands alone and without it you are incoherent. The Logos, the Word, is purely logical because God Himself is purely logical. His Word could not be communicated to you without logical coherence. To reject logic is to embrace chaos. God is not the author of confusion.

Oh, I agree, there is an infallible logic. But, are you saying that Calvinist logic is that infallible form of logic? That is my point.

 

[bradfordl]

But, are you saying that Calvinist logic is that infallible form of logic?

Again, logic is not Calvinist. That Calvinism is logical may be proved or disproved through logical reasoning. I have come to the conclusion that it is logical, and believe I can prove that. Can you prove it is not with sound logic derived from scripture? I don't think you can, but invite you to try.

To be honest, I was as abhorrent of the doctrines of sovereign grace as anyone when I first heard them while a member of a virulently arminian Nazarene Church. And I resisted long and hard, but God had mercy. There were too many logical incoherencies in light of scripture for me to remain arminian. Bible studies became a string of statements of "what he really means is....", all in disregard for the plain meanings of words. Greek and Hebrew studies weren't popular in that Church. But I had a Greek interlinear, and what it said was clear. God is completely sovereign and has ordained all things.

You call it Calvinism (which may be lamentable because it implys following a man rather than the truth), but I call it biblical doctrine, and in light of the whole of scripture, it is irrefutable.

SDG,

Brad

 

[Koey]

...That Calvinism is logical may be proved or disproved through logical reasoning...

To be honest, I neither describe myself as Arminian nor Calvinist. I find too many logical inconsistencies in both Calvinism and Arminianism. More importantly to me: Both of those guys came too late in Christian history to describe the Christianity that I identify with.

As far as logic is concerned, there are several schools of that: classical, Aristotelian, propositional, mathematical, scientific, inductive, deductive, predicate, modal, philosophical, paraconsistent, and legal, to name a few.

If Calvinism is based upon logic, then which one? If one of those above, why are none of them even named in the Bible?

Jesus told his disciples to teach what he commanded them. That is the Christianity of Christ, its founder and the Christianity that I identify with. As far as I can see, the never ending Calvinist-Arminian debate is an argument over a legalistic, man-made set of rules of interpretation, having little to do with the Christianity of Christ.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

To be honest, I neither describe myself as Arminian nor Calvinist. I find too many logical inconsistencies in both Calvinism and Arminianism. More importantly to me: Both of those guys came too late in Christian history to describe the Christianity that I identify with.

As far as logic is concerned, there are several schools of that: classical, Aristotelian, propositional, mathematical, scientific, inductive, deductive, predicate, modal, philosophical, paraconsistent, and legal, to name a few.

If Calvinism is based upon logic, then which one? If one of those above, why are none of them even named in the Bible?

Jesus told his disciples to teach what he commanded them. That is the Christianity of Christ, its founder and the Christianity that I identify with. As far as I can see, the never ending Calvinist-Arminian debate is an argument over a legalistic, man-made set of rules of interpretation, having little to do with the Christianity of Christ.

Do I detect the 'popery' of anti-intellectualism here?

 

[bradfordl]

Saw this on another thread. I'm thinking of changing my signature:

Hos 4:17 Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone.

Whaddya think?

 

[Koey]

Do I detect the 'popery' of anti-intellectualism here?

No, quite the opposite. I believe that God gave us brains to use. What you detect and perhaps have misread, is the skepticism that one brand of intellectualism (Calvinist) is superior to another (Arminian). And, you may have also detected the skepticism that the whole of Christianity can be reduced to such a simplistic false dichotomy.

 

[heymikey80]

Ah, I don't think Calvinism splits Christianity into such a false dichotomy. Nothing of the sort. When a theology states as its first principle, "We're all wrong", I doubt the result could ever be simplistic.

It's just that we see so much theology revolving so tightly about human initiative and action, the echoes of Arminius tend to reverberate in our ears.

 

[Koey]

Ah, I don't think Calvinism splits Christianity into such a false dichotomy. Nothing of the sort. When a theology states as its first principle, "We're all wrong", I doubt the result could ever be simplistic.

It's just that we see so much theology revolving so tightly about human initiative and action, the echoes of Arminius tend to reverberate in our ears.

We're all wrong, but Calvinists are right and Arminians are wrong???? Sorry, not logical!!!