Quiz: Are you Calvinist or Arminian?

[Humble_Disciple]

 

[Humble_Disciple]

There are so many Bible verses supporting the five points of Calvinism that the only reason why people reject it is because it causes them to question the character of God.

John Piper says it's better to be a good Christian that rejects Calvinism if believing in doctrines like unconditional election would make you think less of God.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Calvinism vs. Arminianism is not just a matter of predestination vs. free will. It’s also a question of what did Christ’s suffering and death accomplish.

Did Jesus give up His life to unfailingly save a definite number of people or to just make salvation possible for no individuals in particular, with the possibility of falling away from salvation?

 

[Humble_Disciple]

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

There are so many Bible verses supporting the five points of Calvinism that the only reason why people reject it is because it causes them to question the character of God.

John Piper says it's better to be a good Christian that rejects Calvinism if believing in doctrines like unconditional election would make you think less of God.

Keep an open mind, and read the Lutheran Confessions (Book of Concord), and I think you will find that Bible verses that support the five points are often used out of context. Let Scripture give context to scripture and let Scripture interpret Scripture, not experience or logic, but the pure word of God.

 

[JesusFreak78]

There are so many Bible verses supporting the five points of Calvinism that the only reason why people reject it is because it causes them to question the character of God.

John Piper says it's better to be a good Christian that rejects Calvinism if believing in doctrines like unconditional election would make you think less of God.

I understand what John Piper is trying to say, but I disagree with him on this. If Calvinistic doctrine is Biblical doctrine, you shouldn't reject it, even if it makes you questions the character of God. If this is the case, then your problem is with God Himself, and that is never a good position to be in.

We need to stop making God into an image that feels good, which is idolatry. We need to let the Bible interpret itself, and let's God's Word shape our opinion about God. Everything in the Bible is there to glorify The Trinity, and He deserves to be worshiped for it.

 

[The Liturgist]

John Wesley and George Whitefield were perhaps the greatest evangelists of their time. Wesley was the most well-known Arminian in history, while Whitefield was a Calvinist, and yet they worked together in evangelism as fellow Methodists. They recognized that winning souls for Christ is more important than theological precision.

1 Corinthians 8:2-3
Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn’t really know very much. But the person who loves God is the one whom God recognizes.

It is really inaccurate to call John Wesley an Arminian, as it perpetuates the myth that anyone who disagrees with Calvinist pre-destination is an Arminian. Arminius founded a specific denomination, the Remonstrants, which is still around today, whose doctrines were not the same as those of John Wesley.

That being said, it is good to call for ecumenical reconciliation, and to reject sectarianism, and I am of this view also. However, I think you may have inadvertently stirred up sectarian sentiments by posting several Calvinist apologetics threads in the General Theology forum, where everything about Calvin gets reduced to the question of predestination and foreordination.

 

[The Liturgist]

Keep an open mind, and read the Lutheran Confessions (Book of Concord), and I think you will find that Bible verses that support the five points are often used out of context. Let Scripture give context to scripture and let Scripture interpret Scripture, not experience or logic, but the pure word of God.

I myself think the Wesleyan quadrilateral of Scripture, Reason, Tradition and Experience, with experience defined as both individual experience and the experience of the church over time, is an ideal approach. We can both agree, as enthusiastic participants of the Traditional Theology subforum, that tradition is extremely important in terms of connecting us to the Early Church and the Apostles. I think Reason and Experience enter the equation as a means of assisting us in applying Scripture to scenarios which Tradition does not cover, for example, issues like stem cell research and ecumenical reconciliation, and also, Reason and Experience provide a framework for supporting mystical theology by providing a means of connecting it with the Scriptures and Tradition, which is extremely important in the field of mystical theology, in that, we are commanded to test every spirit.

Mystical theology is in turn extremely important, I think, because it offers us, if done with sobriety and humility, in the manner of the Eastern churches and the great Lutheran mystical theologian Soren Kierkegaard, both an improved understanding of God’s love for us, and also, more practically, means of approaching the objective of praying without ceasing.

 

[The Liturgist]

I am so tired of sectarianism that, if not for the sake of convenience, I would never call myself a Calvinist.

There's a big difference between joining the Calvinist bandwagon and humbly reading the Bible as the final authority and coming to realize that it happens to agree with Calvinism. If you put the Bible first, and not your sectarian interpretation, then you can continue in peace and fellowship with non-Calvinists.

My only intent in communicating the doctrinal foundations of Calvinism to non-Calvinists has been to avoid being mislabeled as a heretic, not to prod others into joining some sort of bandwagon.

So, you know, Scripture supports a number of different interpretations, which is why we have schisms and different denominations. Indeed, even Arius was able to provide a scriptural exegesis for his theology, which was, unlike Calvinism, actual heresy (on CF.com no one would call you a heretic for professing Calvinism; it is against the rules and the culture; if your beliefs fit in with the CF.com Statement of Faith, which is the Nicene Creed as revised at the Council of Constantinople in 381, members should positively not call you a heretic), and he did this without modifying the text, something the contemporary heretical cult, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, did do, but this was due to a certain incompetence on their part, since they started out as ostensibly a Bible study group, and in promoting Arianism, one would assume they got tired of fielding endless questions about John 1:1, and at the same time, they were unaware of, or disinterested, in how the Arians explained it.

It certainly hasn’t harmed them, as their cult continues to grow, unlike most cults, exploiting the poorest members of society (a Pew research study indicated that of the religions in America, the Jehovah’s Witnesses had the lowest per capita income; interestingly, the Unitarian Universalists, who are similiarly heretical in that they completely deny the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and who unfortunately seized control of several of the prettiest Congregationalist churches in New England during the schism they initiated in the late 18th century, and also Harvard Divinity School, are the wealthiest on a per capita basis).

I have recently made several posts on CF.com explaining how, through different means of interpretation, Scripture can be used to support a range of doctrines, some of which are erroneous, which is why I agree with the great fourth century anti-Arian bishop Saint Hilarion of Poitiers, who famously declared that Scripture is in the Interpretation, not the reading, and the fifth century Vincent of Lerins, who taught that the apostolic, universal, orthodox faith of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church we (including Calvinist members) confess a belief in in the Nicene Creed, is what has always been believed everywhere, by everyone.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

George Whitefield and John Wesley accomplished great things together because they were able to agree to disagree on predestination, and I believe that's the model of how Calvinists and Arminians should approach one another. If anyone asks me what kind of a Calvinist I am, I am a George Whitefield Calvinist.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I myself think the Wesleyan quadrilateral of Scripture, Reason, Tradition and Experience, with experience defined as both individual experience and the experience of the church over time, is an ideal approach. We can both agree, as enthusiastic participants of the Traditional Theology subforum, that tradition is extremely important in terms of connecting us to the Early Church and the Apostles. I think Reason and Experience enter the equation as a means of assisting us in applying Scripture to scenarios which Tradition does not cover, for example, issues like stem cell research and ecumenical reconciliation, and also, Reason and Experience provide a framework for supporting mystical theology by providing a means of connecting it with the Scriptures and Tradition, which is extremely important in the field of mystical theology, in that, we are commanded to test every spirit.

Mystical theology is in turn extremely important, I think, because it offers us, if done with sobriety and humility, in the manner of the Eastern churches and the great Lutheran mystical theologian Soren Kierkegaard, both an improved understanding of God’s love for us, and also, more practically, means of approaching the objective of praying without ceasing.

Respectfully, it is personal experience and interpretation that outside the Church has also given us "social Marxism" and the "social justice movement"... In theology, this leads us to various critical approaches to scriptural interpretation, resulting schism and sectarianism. IMO.

 

[The Liturgist]

Respectfully, it is personal experience and interpretation that outside the Church has also given us "social Marxism" and the "social justice movement"... In theology, this leads us to various critical approaches to scriptural interpretation, resulting schism and sectarianism. IMO.

You could be right, but that wasn’t the kind of experience and reason I had in mind. I am extremely opposed to critical approaches to scriptural interpretation, and to schisms and sectarianism. So if you think the Wesleyan Quadrilateral actually puts us in danger of it, I really want to know why, because if you are correct, it is a view I want to disavow myself of. I had considered it a fuller version of the Anglican Scripture, Tradition, Reason model.

So please, if you could elaborate, I really want to understand your perspective on this.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

You could elaborate, I really want to understand your perspective on this.

Good luck, that is the age old question.

 

[The Liturgist]

Good luck, that is the age old question.

@MarkRohfrietsch is a friend of mine who I love dearly, and I take his opinions seriously.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

While the sign at the gate to heaven says “Whosoever will may come,” the other side says “Chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.”

This is not a contradiction because, according to John 6:37, you cannot come to Jesus unless granted to Him by the Father, and none who come will be turned away.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

@MarkRohfrietsch is a friend of mine who I love dearly, and I take his opinions seriously.

You’ve been here 2 yrs, I’ve been a year longer than Mark, know what has transpired in that time and am not lying, so refrain from the condemnation of anyone’s opinions. Some good advise not usually taken but should be.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

I have realized why I disagree with Leighton Flowers so strongly.

He seems to reject the doctrine of prevenient grace while holding too weak a view of God's sovereignty.

I need to learn more about Molinism as a middle ground between God's sovereignty and human free will.

My intent has not been to convince others that Calvinism is true, but only that they should be more tolerant of Calvinists, especially since some of history's greatest missionaries and evangelists have been Calvinists.

Calvinism is just a framework for understanding the text of scripture, and I've never claimed that it's required for salvation. I am just as offended by anti-Calvinists as I am by young earth creationists who attack Hugh Ross for not believing that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Just as the Bible doesn't specifically endorse either old earth or young earth creationism, it doesn't specifically endorse either Calvinism or anti-Calvinism. I just wish there were more tolerance for points of view that aren't required for salvation.

 

[The Liturgist]

You’ve been here 2 yrs, I’ve been a year longer than Mark, know what has transpired in that time and am not lying, so refrain from the condemnation of anyone’s opinions. Some good advise not usually taken but should be.

How I would love to have spent that much time with my friend @MarkRohfrietsch - I am really looking forward to discussing his concerns on the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. One thing has frustrated me about the Methodist churches, that being their failure to implement the liturgical vision of John Wesley, such as communion every Sunday, and fasting and church services consisting at a minimum of the traditional Anglican Office of the Litany on Wednesday and Friday or to consistently preach entire sanctification, his Occidental explanation of the Oriental doctrine of Theosis, and so on, and perhaps the Wesleyan Quadrilateral contributed to this failure. Either way, if @MarkRohfrietsch has a serious concern about something, I want to learn why, because he is one of the members of CF.com I trust the most.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

I have now re-taken the quiz. According to this quiz, I am an Arminian who believes in eternal security:
Are you Calvinist or Arminian?

 

[Humble_Disciple]

The one thing I strongly dislike about Calvinism, at least as it exists today, is it seems to be more motivated by fear of being labeled as Pelagian or of not conforming to group identity than it is by an open-minded and honest obedience to scripture, wherever it might lead.

This can be seen especially today in the criticism Matt Chandler has received for even daring to deviate from the expectations of fellow Calvinists on issues like continuationism and racial injustice.