Calvinism - Arminianism

[Nadiine]

Continuing discussion from another thread so it doesn't stay off topic.

*edit*
I should have added "other" as a poll option -
if you have another Position, just post it separately. sorry

 

[Nadiine]

Originally Posted by Nadiine

Welp, I think Arminianism has it's correct statements
(waits for rotten fruits & vegies to be whipped at me) -

I find some truth in both positions so I kind of hang out in btwn. the 2 -
probly at about 90ish% calvanist.
(not to get the thread topic on that lol


​

Frankly those who start mixing armianism and calvinism confuse me. Either God is in total control, therefore those who are rengenerated is completely by his Grace and he keeps them there or sinners choose and they must keep themselves in the faith. It's one or the other it cannot be both. That's like saying someone is pregnant and not pregnant at the same time.

How so? Are you sure you haven't constructed your theology to make it that way? I still see it as inconsequential, as useful as debating whether Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus. Religious baggage even.

My soteriology is much closer to classical Arminian than to anything else.

Actually I believe that God IS in full control and is purely sovereign and that ALL salvation is His work alone - but that IN His sovereignty, He has designated a sliver of choice where we accept or reject His sacrifice.

Enabling us/giving us that measure of faith and drawing us to Himself.
I see little point in the Father "drawing us" when He knows we're predestined & will be His anyways. No need to 'draw' or 'lure' us - He either slaps salvation on you against your will or He doesn't.

I see choice somewhar's in thar. (my lame attempt at a southern accent)

I'll go start a calvanist/arminian thread to spare this one from complete ruin - altho it's been rehashed into the ground at CF. =0)

Originally Posted by Izdaari

I'm somewhere in the middle on the Calvinist vs. Arminian thing, probably what they call a "Moderate Calvinist", i.e. I believe free will and predestination are both true to a degree, even though that's hard for humans to wrap their minds around. One thing about it, I'm in pretty distinguished company: Charles Stanley, Josh McDowell, Ravi Zacharias and Norman Geisler are standing here with me. ​

​

Unfortunately, Scripture is not systematically consistent, and does not neatly accommodate either of the views you posit.

added previous posts

 

[Secundulus]

You forgot to put a choice for Catholic.

 

[Nadiine]

You forgot to put a choice for Catholic.

I'm ignorant about any other choices Sec... my apology.

Can I alter the poll?

If so, what do you want me to type in?
Err, maybe add Other?

 

[MrJim]

You forgot to put a choice for Catholic.

Calvininsts consider you Arminian~sorry 'bout that

 

[MrJim]

Sure this thread is a good idea?

 

[Nadiine]

(sorry guys, I'm trying to move this all over here so we don't
ruin Desmalia's thread topic over there)

Originally Posted by MrJim

I was a converted Calvinist for a decade~realized one day I had wasted 10 years on it~~I used to be violently against it but got over it and don't argue it much anymore...I just sit back and watch PrincetonGuy dismantle Calvinists over in the Baptist forum and rest easy​

​

I shall remember you said that.

This same person who said faith in Jesus Christ does not save and justify a person and that it takes works of righteousness to be acceptable in the sight of God. This same person who said that one must work to be justified, saved, and accepted of God.

If I have to "work" at being saved and "work" at being justified in the sight of God, then Jesus Christ died in vain. At any time in our life, the best we could say is that we "might" be saved.

This same member who just last fall, was espousing the theory that baptism saves?!?

This same person who boasted of being among the "educated elite" of his denmonination?!?

This same person who said:

"For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." -Gal. 3:27 (KJV)

Paul did not teach that you have been placed "in Christ" neither have you "put on Christ."

Yep, that sure sounds like a Christian you can trust.

I'll remember you said that brother.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Originally Posted by MrJim

Look what the cat dragged in
And I stand by the PrincetonGuy..
​

 

[Nadiine]

Sure this thread is a good idea?

Yes becuz Des's thread is turning into this debate... for almost 2 pages now, so I thought I'd move it.

I think the best thing to do is not participate if people are too sensitive about this.
I've personally never understood why tempers would flare about it either way when we don't need or have to know HOW God saves specifically -
knowing generally is very helpful, but to pinpoint the ONLY 1 rigid way doesn't seem to be necessary imho.

& who says either side has it 100% accurate?? I think both are accurate & need some tweaking in some parts. But it doesn't matter if I even think that - becuz it doesn't alter salvation any. God saves whether we fully know the method or not.

 

[MrJim]

Yes becuz Des's thread is turning into this debate... for almost 2 pages now, so I thought I'd move it.

I think the best thing to do is not participate if people are too sensitive about this.
I've personally never understood why tempers would flare about it either way when we don't need or have to know HOW God saves specifically -
knowing generally is very helpful, but to pinpoint the ONLY 1 rigid way doesn't seem to be necessary imho.

& who says either side has it 100% accurate?? I think both are accurate & need some tweaking in some parts. But it doesn't matter if I even think that - becuz it doesn't alter salvation any. God saves whether we fully know the method or not.

If it ends up the way all others do it'll go upstairs into the debate room...the hardcore Calvinist believes this is the true gospel~Calvinism/TULIP represents the core of the gospel (and in essence the "True Church") and any deviation of it represents anything from heterodoxy to heresy to blasphemy. It is a very sensitive subject for those reasons. I've sat in a Reformed Theology conference with many of the big names present (Sproul/Packer/Boice/Horton/Gerstner Jr)~still have the notes where Dr. Gerstner said that anyone knowingly teaching arminianism is teaching another gospel.

 

[NorrinRadd]

I'm ignorant about any other choices Sec... my apology.

Can I alter the poll?

If so, what do you want me to type in?
Err, maybe add Other?

Catholics might be considered "Arminian-ish." However, that's sort of an anachronism, given that Arminius was part of the Reformation era, and Catholicism predated that.

Orthodox -- Not sure, maybe their soteriology is like RC.

Lutheran -- That might qualify as a form of "Calminian," or whatever you called it.

 

[NorrinRadd]

... ~still have the notes where Dr. Gerstner said that anyone knowingly teaching arminianism is teaching another gospel.

If he really believes that, how does his conscience allow him to NOT loudly, repeatedly, and publicly demand that all Arminians be anathematized?

 

[A New Dawn]

Subscribing so I can watch the fight, maybe throw a few rotten fish myself.

 

[JustAsIam77]

If it ends up the way all others do it'll go upstairs into the debate room...the hardcore Calvinist believes this is the true gospel~Calvinism/TULIP represents the core of the gospel (and in essence the "True Church") and any deviation of it represents anything from heterodoxy to heresy to blasphemy. It is a very sensitive subject for those reasons. I've sat in a Reformed Theology conference with many of the big names present (Sproul/Packer/Boice/Horton/Gerstner Jr)~still have the notes where Dr. Gerstner said that anyone knowingly teaching arminianism is teaching another gospel.

Maybe some calvinists are like that. I'm reformed and certainly not. I agree more with what Nadine stated. Arminian, Calvinist... what does it matter. As Christians we're saved.

 

[Nadiine]

Subscribing so I can watch the fight, maybe throw a few rotten fish myself.

ooooh we see Dawn's sadistic side come out!! lol

Maybe some calvinists are like that. I'm reformed and certainly not. I agree more with what Nadine stated. Arminian, Calvinist... what does it matter. As Christians we're saved.

I'll be honest here... I've never really watched a full blown Calvanist/Arminian debate like in the theology area, so I didn't really know they got ugly-nasty.
I HOPE it doesn't get like that here.

I guess the ones who might get hostile about it might actually think you have to be Calvanist or Arminian to be born again??

Otherwise, I don't grasp the hostility about having to know HOW God saves in the fullest capacity.
I sure don't hate Calvanists - but I've seen people hate on them becuz of their belief. It's horrible.

 

[JustAsIam77]

ooooh we see Dawn's sadistic side come out!! lol


I'll be honest here... I've never really watched a full blown Calvanist/Arminian debate like in the theology area, so I didn't really know they got ugly-nasty.
I HOPE it doesn't get like that here.

I guess the ones who might get hostile about it might actually think you have to be Calvanist or Arminian to be born again??

Otherwise, I don't grasp the hostility about having to know HOW God saves in the fullest capacity.
I sure don't hate Calvanists - but I've seen people hate on them becuz of their belief. It's horrible.

Yeah, I don't get the hostility part. I feel conviction in my theology but if someone disagrees, my attitude is hey, that's cool, go in peace.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Yeah, I don't get the hostility part. I feel conviction in my theology but if someone disagrees, my attitude is hey, that's cool, go in peace.

Even though I'm basically Arminian, I understand the passionate approach of some Calvinists. Most of them believe Arminianism teaches a works-based salvation and/or denies the sovereignty of God. If either were true, it would constitute a serious, anathema-worthy heresy.

 

[Zecryphon]

Catholics might be considered "Arminian-ish." However, that's sort of an anachronism, given that Arminius was part of the Reformation era, and Catholicism predated that.

Orthodox -- Not sure, maybe their soteriology is like RC.

Lutheran -- That might qualify as a form of "Calminian," or whatever you called it.

How is a Lutheran Calminian?

 

[Zecryphon]

Maybe some calvinists are like that. I'm reformed and certainly not. I agree more with what Nadine stated. Arminian, Calvinist... what does it matter. As Christians we're saved.

It matters because Arminianism states that people play a part in their salvation by making a freewill choice for Christ. Scripture clearly refutes that position. Teaching what the scriptures really stateabout salvation is of the utmost importance for the Christian. So this really does matter.

 

[NorrinRadd]

How is a Lutheran Calminian?

That was sort of an off-the-cuff remark. Despite my Lutheran heritage, I don't know a lot about the theology. I've gotten the impression it's sort of Calvinism-like, except it allows the possibility of apostasy -- a more Arminian view.

 

[Zecryphon]

Luther preceeded both John Calvin and Joseph Arminius. So he's not borrowing from either one of them when he wrote his position on how a person is justified. Here is the Lutheran position on both Free Will and Justification.

Article XVIII: Of Free Will.


1] Of Free Will they teach that man's will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work 2] things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man 3] receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2, 14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received 4] through the Word. These things are said in as many words by Augustine in his Hypognosticon, Book III: We grant that all men have a free will, free, inasmuch as it has the judgment of reason; not that it is thereby capable, without God, either to begin, or, at least, to complete aught in things pertaining to God, but only in works of this life, whether good 5] or evil. "Good" I call those works which spring from the good in nature, such as, willing to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to have a friend, to clothe oneself, to build a house, to marry a wife, to raise cattle, to learn divers useful arts, or whatsoever good 6]pertains to this life. For all of these things are not without dependence on the providence of God; yea, of Him and through Him they are and have their being. "Evil" 7] I call such works as willing to worship an idol, to commit murder, etc. 8] They condemn the Pelagians and others, who teach that without the Holy Ghost, by the power of nature alone, we are able to love God above all things; also to do the commandments of God as touching "the substance of the act." For, although nature is able in a manner to do the outward work, 9] (for it is able to keep the hands from theft and murder,) yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, etc.

Article IV: Of Justification.


1] Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for 2] Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. 3] This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.

Excerpts from the Book of Concord: The Lutheran Confessions as found at:

http://www.bookofconcord.com/augsburgconfession.php#article18