Differences between Arminian, Calvinist, and Lutheranist?

[MrJim]

If you want to know what a Calvinist believes...read the Reformed Confessions.

The chart link I posted covers the different groups of Calvinist and there are more than two. But yes, Arminianism, due to its inherent ideas of total libertarian freewill, is all over the place.

jm

In your opinion where do Sproul, Horton, Begg, and Piper fit in on the chart?

 

[Striver]

There is no tension between the sovereignty of God and human responsibility as revealed in scripture. The problem arises when we seek to reconcile the two concept philosophically. The best defence of scriptural Calvinism was written by Luther who explains it in detail.

I know some Lutherans who would disagree with this. Lutheran is a bit more than the first good Calvinist. Of course, tension is used in the paradoxical and literary sense of the word.

I would seek to clarify my statement by saying whereas Arminians and Calvinists try and drill down to a very definite and intellectual statement about calling, election, etc. Lutheranism is very much okay with saying God indeed calls but we may not fully understand the details, but work it out somewhat in the various sacraments. I've known several Lutherans who would not go as far as double predestination. Since they derive from a more catholic orthopraxy, I think this comes with the territory.

Calvinists seem more apt to debate things like supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism, which is why Calvin's soteriology could be ported to Baptist ecclesiology where Luther's sotierology could not, arguably with only subtle differences.

As for the commentary on the Reformed Baptist animal, my limited reading in the area would agree. I would say that the Continental Reformed and sort of Scottish Reformed theology strands do seem to intersect somewhat at Reformed Baptist thought, but this term is a recent innovation for clarification like you said. I know many capital R Reformed who would maintained Reformed Baptists are not truly Reformed.

In my original commentary, I neglected to include that Lutheran theology of baptism is also a different animal. Baptists hold the memorial view of the Lord's supper and a symbolic view of Baptism where Lutherans do not.

It's all very interesting how intertwined it is!

 

[OzSpen]

Ozpen, that is true. But Arminianism isn't purely that anymore. Also, people can say they believe Arminian view you posted, then turn around and use language supporting her stance when discussing the gospel. Even some reformed do the same thing.

When people say, "I asked Jesus in my heart...", they are using language aligned with her statements, not yours

Her statement was: 'Arminians are syncretists meaning they believe salvation is both a work of God and man'. That is a false view of Arminianism. Arminians are NOT syncretists. They do not believe salvation is a work of both God and human beings. That's a false view that is often perpetrated.

My statements come straight from Arminius. Why don't you debate what I wrote about Arminius's view of salvation?

The Philippian jailer's request of Paul and Silas was, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, '(You) believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved' (Acts 16:30-31, emphasis added). In my understanding, 'I asked Jesus into my heart' is synonymous with '(You) believe in the Lord Jesus Christ'.

If an unbeliever asked you, 'Sir, what must I do to be saved?', what would you say?

Oz

 

[mikedsjr]

Her statement was: 'Arminians are syncretists meaning they believe salvation is both a work of God and man'. That is a false view of Arminianism. Arminians are NOT syncretists. They do not believe salvation is a work of both God and human beings. That's a false view that is often perpetrated.

My statements come straight from Arminius. Why don't you debate what I wrote about Arminius's view of salvation?

The Philippian jailer's request of Paul and Silas was, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, '(You) believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved' (Acts 16:30-31, emphasis added). In my understanding, 'I asked Jesus into my heart' is synonymous with '(You) believe in the Lord Jesus Christ'.

If an unbeliever asked you, 'Sir, what must I do to be saved?', what would you say?

Oz

Oz, I do agree arminianism is not syncretist, if you are referring to classical Arminianism, what Arminius taught. But many people will call themselves arminians when asked between Calvinist and arminianism, and they are syncretist when they begin to speak of the gospel. I agree there is a difference between semi-pelegian and Arminian but it is certainly subtle..

You stopped at Acts 16:31, which I understand based on your stance, but it does continue. When was his faith real? That's not clear, unless you say after baptism. It is at that point we are for sure to know.

 

[OzSpen]

Oz, I do agree arminianism is not syncretist, if you are referring to classical Arminianism, what Arminius taught. But many people will call themselves arminians when asked between Calvinist and arminianism, and they are syncretist when they begin to speak of the gospel. I agree there is a difference between semi-pelegian and Arminian but it is certainly subtle..

You stopped at Acts 16:31, which I understand based on your stance, but it does continue. When was his faith real? That's not clear, unless you say after baptism. It is at that point we are for sure to know.

Mike,

Notice what you did. You said that there was a difference between semi-Pelagian and Arminian but it was 'subtle'. You gave not one example from Arminian writings. This is not helpful in trying to get clarity and accuracy in understanding.

So what is the point you are making with faith and baptism in Acts 16:31? Baptism is mentioned 'the same hour of the night ... and he was baptized' (16:34). Are you supporting baptismal regeneration?

Oz

 

[kristea]

Kristea516,

Welcome to the forum. I see that this is your first post.

You stated that 'Arminians are syncretists meaning they believe salvation is both a work of God and man'. Do you know the difference between syncretists and synergism? Could you be referring to synergism and not syncretists?

In Christ,
Oz

Oz,

Thanks for responding to me. I did mean "synergist" and not "syncretist." I was typing on my phone and it constantly tries to change the word for me. Very irritating. Sorry if that caused any confusion.

What Jacob Arminius wrote and what Arminians today claim to believe are probably quite different; just as, I, being a Calvinist, do not agree with all of what John Calvin wrote.

I grew up in an Arminian church and was a staunch anti-Calvinist until a few years ago. Most of the people in my life are staunch Arminians. They will all claim that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone. However, they will say that you must "accept" this gift. If we have to accept anything, we are doing a work thus being a synergistic.

However, there are many different flavors of Arminians out there today just as there are many flavors of Calvinists.What I will say is that I have yet to meet one who does not hold to a synergistic idea by what they claim whether they admit to it or not.

 

[OzSpen]

Oz,

Thanks for responding to me. I did mean "synergist" and not "syncretist." I was typing on my phone and it constantly tries to change the word for me. Very irritating. Sorry if that caused any confusion.

What Jacob Arminius wrote and what Arminians today claim to believe are probably quite different; just as, I, being a Calvinist, do not agree with all of what John Calvin wrote.

I grew up in an Arminian church and was a staunch anti-Calvinist until a few years ago. Most of the people in my life are staunch Arminians. They will all claim that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone. However, they will say that you must "accept" this gift. If we have to accept anything, we are doing a work thus being a synergistic.

However, there are many different flavors of Arminians out there today just as there are many flavors of Calvinists.What I will say is that I have yet to meet one who does not hold to a synergistic idea by what they claim whether they admit to it or not.

Kristea,

Thanks so much for your clarification re 'syncretist'.

When you state, 'What Jacob Arminius wrote and what Arminians today claim to believe are probably quite different'. This is way too broad a statement and you have provided no examples to support your claim. To know what a chunk of evangelical Arminians believe today, I suggest a visit to a site such as the 'Society of Evangelical Arminians' where you will find many Arminians who support the general thrust of Jacob/James Arminius's theology. I, as a Reformed Arminian, am one of those, although not a member of that Society.

The terms, 'synergism' and 'monergism' have different shades of meaning. Synergism is a theological understanding which believes that there is human participation in salvation. It does not indicate that salvation is attained by human beings. That would be an heretical view. There are heretical forms of synergism in Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism.

Pelagianism denies original sin and considers that people have the human ability to live spiritual lives. Semi-Pelagianism is a modified form of Pelagianism in that it modifies the Pelagian original sin view that sinful human beings have the ability to initiate salvation by responding in good will toward God. I, as a Reformed Arminian, consider those two theological systems to be heretical.

In my library I have a few Arminian theologies, including the works of James Arminius, and they do not exclude the fact that God's grace initiates justification. Henry Thiessen is one of those and he wrote:

Justification thus originates in the heart of God. Realizing not only our lack of righteousness, but also our inability to attain to it, He in His kindness decided to provide a righteousness for us. It was His grace that led Him to provide it; He was under no obligation whatsoever to do it. In His grace He had regard to our guilt and in His mercy, to our misery (Thiessen 1949:365).

You say of Arminians, 'I have yet to meet one who does not hold to a synergistic idea'. But what kind of synergistic idea? The heretical Pelagian or semi-Pelagian, evangelical Arminian, etc? To which shade of synergism are you referring?

You say, 'they will say that you must "accept" this gift. If we have to accept anything, we are doing a work thus being a synergistic'. In my understanding that is a misunderstanding of synergism and of works. In my 53 years of being a Christian, I have heard a number of Calvinists want to include 'accepting the gift of faith' as a work. That is not the common understanding of salvation by works, which is a view promoted by some cults that teach that entrance into eternal glory (or whatever they call it) is attained at least in part by doing a certain list of good deeds or serving the church or organisation with some time or money. That is not the same as accepting a gift that is offered.

If someone were to ask you, 'What must I do to be saved?' what would be your answer?

May the Lord bless you with a good weekend.

Oz

Works consulted
Thiessen, H C 1949. Introductory lectures in systematic theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

 

[kristea]

Thanks, Oz. The reason I didn't "provide any examples to support my claim" is because I didn't come here to argue or debate. The original poster asked what the difference between the different beliefs were and I gave him a very general, over-simplified explanation. If the OP wanted a full explaination with every nuance and flavor, I'm sure he/she knows better than to get that info from a forum thread.

I have never heard of a "Reformed Arminian." I must admit that sounds like an oxymoron but I'll also admit that the more I learn, the more I realize I don't know. You learn something new every day.

As far as which kind of synergistic idea I was talking about, I would say both Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian. I've met Arminians who hold to both but never one that holds to a mongergistic view of salvation.

If someone were to ask me "What must I do to be saved?" I would probably tell them to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and repent of their sins. However is someone asked my "How is a person saved?" I would tell them that God regenerated a person whom He has chosen from before time. He gives that person "spiritual eyes" to see Jesus for who He really is, to see their own sin and need for a Savior, and gives them the ability to believe and repent. But the work of salvation was already completed before the person was aware.

 

[MrJim]

In your opinion where do Sproul, Horton, Begg, and Piper fit in on the chart?

C'mon JM I know you saw this~~hit me up PM if you'd rather..

 

[OzSpen]

Thanks, Oz. The reason I didn't "provide any examples to support my claim" is because I didn't come here to argue or debate. The original poster asked what the difference between the different beliefs were and I gave him a very general, over-simplified explanation. If the OP wanted a full explaination with every nuance and flavor, I'm sure he/she knows better than to get that info from a forum thread.

I have never heard of a "Reformed Arminian." I must admit that sounds like an oxymoron but I'll also admit that the more I learn, the more I realize I don't know. You learn something new every day.

As far as which kind of synergistic idea I was talking about, I would say both Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian. I've met Arminians who hold to both but never one that holds to a mongergistic view of salvation.

If someone were to ask me "What must I do to be saved?" I would probably tell them to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and repent of their sins. However is someone asked my "How is a person saved?" I would tell them that God regenerated a person whom He has chosen from before time. He gives that person "spiritual eyes" to see Jesus for who He really is, to see their own sin and need for a Savior, and gives them the ability to believe and repent. But the work of salvation was already completed before the person was aware.

kristea,

You state that you didn't come here for a debate. However, when you make a statement such as, 'Arminians are syncretists [you have since corrected to mean synergists] meaning they believe salvation is both a work of God and man' (as you stated in #2) you are asking for a debate whether you say so or not. Why? Because to say that Arminians believe that 'salvation is both a work of God and man' is not what I as a Reformed Arminian and other Arminians believe (as in the Society of Evangelical Arminians).

You state that 'I have never heard of a "Reformed Arminian" I must admit that sounds like an oxymoron....' Jacobus Arminius was a minister of the Dutch Reformed Church to his dying day, so he was Reformed and regarded his view as Reformed. A Reformed Arminian is one who accepts the soteriology (doctrine of salvation) and other doctrines as expounded by Arminius. Therefore, to use Reformed as only referring to Calvinism is not true. Reformed Arminianism is sometimes called Classical Arminianism. See Roger E Olson's article, 'Another Calvinist Misrepresentation of Arminianism'.

If you want to know more, Stephen Ashby has a summary article online, ''A Reformed Arminian view'. Ashby presented a Reformed Arminian view of eternal security in Four Views of Eternal Security (Zondervan) - Ashby's exposition begins on p. 135.

You state that 'I've met Arminians who hold to both [Pelagian and semi-Pelagian] but never one that holds to a mongergistic view of salvation'. To the contrary, 'Arminianism is God-centered Theology'.

Could it be that you are unable to see monergism and God-centred theology in Arminianism because you don't seem to have read extensively in The Works of James Arminius? If you did, you'd find that Arminius believed salvation was the work of God.

What must I do to be saved? When the Philippian jailer asked Paul this question, Paul told him what to DO: ''(You) believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household' (Acts 16:31) and then Paul spoke the word of the Lord to him and those with him. And then he and his family were baptised (16:33). We have no direct indication of what Paul said when he spoke the word of the Lord to them, but he 'rejoiced along with the entire household that he had believed in God' (16:34).

There is no mention in this text of Paul's preaching regeneration, election and predestination in order for the jailer to be converted to Christ.

Here is a summary of 'The FACTS of Salvation: A Summary of Arminian Theology/the Biblical Doctrines of Grace'.

In Christ, Oz