Quiz: Are you Calvinist or Arminian?

[BobRyan]

I would like to say again that quizzes aren't meant to be an exact science. You provide the answer that you learn the most towards.

the quiz was "rigged" so that you only have a choice between two wrong positions.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Quiz: Are you Calvinist or Arminian?

This is a short quiz to see if you are Calvinist or Arminian. While the average person seems to have a natural revulsion to Calvinism, you might be a Calvinist without even realizing it.

Calvinism is not something to be afraid of. The more I learn about the doctrines of grace, the more thankful I am to God for calling me, and the more I want to live in a way that pleases Him, no matter what suffering I might endure in life.

By the way, "Calvinism" is just a convenient term for a set of beliefs regarding God's election that were common among early reformers. Martin Luther and John Calvin were largely in agreement.

While the following might sound Calvinistic, it's actually from Martin Luther's 97 Theses, which were written before his famous 95 Theses:



In case you aren't sure about exactly what the basic teachings of Calvinism are, and how they find support in the Bible:
The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented by David N. Steele

quiz says I am neither, that I am an eternalists.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

I honestly do not know enough about the Bible to say whether I am Calvinist or Arminian.

I might take an online quiz that says I'm a Calvinist, but that might be due to an ignorance of scripture.

I just took the quiz again and it says I am an Arminian, but I really don't know. It doesn't matter to our salvation whether we are Arminian or Calvinist.

 

[The Liturgist]

Similarly. I tried a few of the questions, but the wording of them was often giving me a binary choice between alternatives neither of which accurately expressed anything like my own understanding.

I found this to be the case. It was impossible to honestly answer the questions. And I think the quiz itself was flawed, because clearly it is rounding up someone who scores say 0.51 Calvinist to be Calvinist, and someone who scores 0.51 Arminian to be Arminian. Also, it is something of a myth that if you aren’t a Calvinist, you are automatically Arminian. Arminius was a Dutch Reformed Protestant who broke away from Calvinist orthodoxy and developed his own theology, and there are still some Arminian churches in the Netherlands.

There are many other non-Calvinist theologies, some of which are closer to Calvinism, such as Lutheranism, and some of which are further away, like Eastern Orthodoxy, Methodism, and non-Calvinist Baptism. Lutheranism is still not Calvinist, and neither is Roman Catholicism, but, to take the soteriologies of those two denominations and compare them to the others, both share with Calvinism a heavy Augustinian influence, which is almost entirely absent in Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, and which is understated in Methodism and classical Arminianism. So it would be much easier if it was a choice between Calvinist and non-Calvinist.

It would be better still if it gave us a probability, so that we could see where on a spectrum between, say, Calvinist and Non-Calvinist we are.

 

[The Liturgist]

I honestly do not know enough about the Bible to say whether I am Calvinist or Arminian.

I might take an online quiz that says I'm a Calvinist, but that might be due to an ignorance of scripture.

I just took the quiz again and it says I am an Arminian, but I really don't know. It doesn't matter to our salvation whether we are Arminian or Calvinist.

Both Calvinism and the various non-Calvinist soteriologies we tend to call Arminianism can be supported scripturally. There is also more to Calvinism than just his predestination-based soteriology, as one will encounter if one reads Calvin’s Institutes.

However, the simplified version of this question, is basically, do we humans have the free will to enable us to willingly and of our own volition believe in Christ, or does God foreordain us to salvation or damnation? And there is scriptural support for both of those.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

However, the simplified version of this question, is basically, do we humans have the free will to enable us to willingly and of our own volition believe in Christ, or does God foreordain us to salvation or damnation? And there is scriptural support for both of those.

These passages seem to support the Arminian view, that we are predestined unto faith based on God's foreknowledge that we would choose to believe:

1 Peter 1:1–2
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:
Grace to you and peace be multiplied.

Romans 8:29
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

 

[The Liturgist]

These passages seem to support the Arminian view, that we are predestined unto faith based on God's foreknowledge that we would choose to believe:

They sure do, however, there are other passages used to support Calvinist predetermination. I should know; I have been a Calvinist and a non-Calvinist..

I feel that Patristics leans towards non-Calvinist soteriology in the early church, however, there is enough material in support of Calvinist doctrine, and the phrase consensus Patrum was even invented by Reformed theologians!

 

[Humble_Disciple]

and the phrase consensus Patrum was even invented by Reformed theologians!

Are you sure it wasn't invented by Eastern Orthodox Christians?

 

[BobRyan]

However, the simplified version of this question, is basically, do we humans have the free will to enable us to willingly and of our own volition believe in Christ, or does God foreordain us to salvation or damnation? And there is scriptural support for both of those.

It should have been

Arminian: Do we as humans have a loving God that has sovereignly chosen to supernaturally "draw ALL mankind" unto Himself - where that drawing of God fully enables the free will (choice) to accept the Gospel even for the unregenerate person - or do we not have such a God according to the Bible?

Does the Romans 10:9-10 process work without first arbitrarily selecting someone to be born-again or is the sequence of Romans 10:9-10 correct as it is stated?

Rom 10:
9... if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

Is there in your view - no such thing as a born again person who knows what the Bible says about salvation -- but is not saved, not a believer, has not decided to accept the Gospel?

Does God actually "so love the WORLD that He gave.. or is it just "few of Matt 7" that God loved?

Is it the "whole World" in 1 John 2:2 or just the select few of Matt 7 that have the benefit of Christ's atoning sacrifice made available to them if they so choose?

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

I Jesus "the savior of the world" 1 John 4:4 in your view or just the savior of an arbitrarily elect "few" in Matt 7.

Are the "few" in Matt 7 just a "selected few" or those who select themselves by choosing not only to hear Christ's Words but also to act in obedience --- "according to the text"?

=========================

OR is Calvinism correct such that God is sovereign in a way that does not allow some choice by the lost sinner to have any part in determining the outcome?

 

[9Rock9]

I noticed the first question says whether "man is free from Satan, but can choose to sin," I believe that's more Semi-Pelagian than Arminian.

I got Calvinist, btw.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

I noticed the first question says whether "man is free from Satan, but can choose to sin," I believe that's more Semi-Pelagian than Arminian.

I got Calvinist, btw.

Traditionally, Arminians and Calvinists agree on total depravity. The main difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is whether election is conditional or unconditional.

Arminians teach, based on 1 Peter 1:1-2 and Romans 8:29, that God predestines based on His foreknowledge of who would believe or not believe, rather than just His own inexplicable whim.

 

[The Liturgist]

It should have been

Arminian: Do we as humans have a loving God that has sovereignly chosen to supernaturally "draw ALL mankind" unto Himself - where that drawing of God fully enables the free will (choice) to accept the Gospel even for the unregenerate person - or do we not have such a God according to the Bible?

Does the Romans 10:9-10 process work without first arbitrarily selecting someone to be born-again or is the sequence of Romans 10:9-10 correct as it is stated?

Rom 10:
9... if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

Is there in your view - no such thing as a born again person who knows what the Bible says about salvation -- but is not saved, not a believer, has not decided to accept the Gospel?

Does God actually "so love the WORLD that He gave.. or is it just "few of Matt 7" that God loved?

Is it the "whole World" in 1 John 2:2 or just the select few of Matt 7 that have the benefit of Christ's atoning sacrifice made available to them if they so choose?

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

I Jesus "the savior of the world" 1 John 4:4 in your view or just the savior of an arbitrarily elect "few" in Matt 7.

Are the "few" in Matt 7 just a "selected few" or those who select themselves by choosing not only to hear Christ's Words but also to act in obedience --- "according to the text"?

=========================

OR is Calvinism correct such that God is sovereign in a way that does not allow some choice by the lost sinner to have any part in determining the outcome?

I agree entirely my brother.

 

[The Liturgist]

Traditionally, Arminians and Calvinists agree on total depravity. The main difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is whether election is conditional or unconditional.

I think rather the main difference is that what we call “Calvinism” is really Determinism, in that we have no free will, and our election is thus in a sense unconditional, but also, foreordained by God, and what we call “Arminianism” is Non-Determinist, in that we have free will, so election is deterministic.

But your post hints at another element, the fact that classical Arminians and Calvinists both believe in Total Depravity. if you actually look at the Arminian church in the Netherlands, you will see there is more to Arminianism than is commonly believed or understood. I think it is much better to refer to the non-Calvinist soteriology of the Orthodox, the Seventh Day Adventists, the Evangelicals, the Roman Catholics, the Lutherans, the Moravians, the non-Calvinist Baptists, and most of the Methodists (specifically the soteriology of John Wesley as opposed to some of his Calvinist Methodist counterparts such as George Whitefield and Lady Moody), as simply Free Will Soteriology, or Non-Determinism, and for that matter, to refer to the “Calvinist” Soteriology of Reformed churches, Presbyterians, many Baptist churches, Fundamentalist Christians, some Anglicans, the majority of Congregationalists, and others, as Determinism.

Because, basically, that is what it boils down to. There is much more to Calvinism than the Determinist soteriology, and there is much more to Arminianism than the Non-Determinist soteriology.

For example, in my experience, most Methodists subscribe to Non-Determinist soteriology, but have an interpretation of the Eucharist which aligns with that of John Calvin.

So I really wish we would use the broader terminology of Determinism vs. Non-Determinism in order to avoid snagging ourselves on denominational specifics. Because, for example, in the case of “Calvinist Baptist” churches, and in the theology of prominent Baptist theologians of that orientation, such as Dr. Al Mohler, whom I regard with considerable admiration even though I do not agree with him on every issue of theology, there is actually relatively little in the beliefs and practices of these Baptist churches that is Calvinist per se, other than their shared belief in Determinism. When it comes to their views on sacramental theology, baptism, particularly infant baptism, the Eucharist, liturgics, Mariology, ecclesiology, and many other issues, the theology of John Calvin is vastly different than the theology of Al Mohler.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Quiz: Are you Calvinist or Arminian?

This is a short quiz to see if you are Calvinist or Arminian. While the average person seems to have a natural revulsion to Calvinism, you might be a Calvinist without even realizing it.

Calvinism is not something to be afraid of. The more I learn about the doctrines of grace, the more thankful I am to God for calling me, and the more I want to live in a way that pleases Him, no matter what suffering I might endure in life.

By the way, "Calvinism" is just a convenient term for a set of beliefs regarding God's election that were common among early reformers. Martin Luther and John Calvin were largely in agreement.

While the following might sound Calvinistic, it's actually from Martin Luther's 97 Theses, which were written before his famous 95 Theses:



In case you aren't sure about exactly what the basic teachings of Calvinism are, and how they find support in the Bible:
The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented by David N. Steele

Semi-Pelagian here.

 

[The Liturgist]

Semi-Pelagian here.

Just out of curiosity, why would you call yourself semi-Pelagian? Pelagianism is a specific belief system that states that we can save ourselves without the assistance of the Holy Spirit. While it is non-determinist, and while in some Reformed polemics we see non-determinism referred to as “semi-Pelagian” in a perjorative context, the reality is that all of the mainstream denominations of Christianity that embrace non-deterministic soteriology do recognize the need for divine grace in order to attain salvation. Indeed, Pelagianism was condemned as a heresy by St. Augustine and St. John Cassian, and recognized as such by the entire church, in the early fourth century, without there even needing to be an ecumenical council.

 

[9Rock9]

I think rather the main difference is that what we call “Calvinism” is really Determinism, in that we have no free will, and our election is thus in a sense unconditional, but also, foreordained by God, and what we call “Arminianism” is Non-Determinist, in that we have free will, so election is deterministic.

But your post hints at another element, the fact that classical Arminians and Calvinists both believe in Total Depravity. if you actually look at the Arminian church in the Netherlands, you will see there is more to Arminianism than is commonly believed or understood. I think it is much better to refer to the non-Calvinist soteriology of the Orthodox, the Seventh Day Adventists, the Evangelicals, the Roman Catholics, the Lutherans, the Moravians, the non-Calvinist Baptists, and most of the Methodists (specifically the soteriology of John Wesley as opposed to some of his Calvinist Methodist counterparts such as George Whitefield and Lady Moody), as simply Free Will Soteriology, or Non-Determinism, and for that matter, to refer to the “Calvinist” Soteriology of Reformed churches, Presbyterians, many Baptist churches, Fundamentalist Christians, some Anglicans, the majority of Congregationalists, and others, as Determinism.

Because, basically, that is what it boils down to. There is much more to Calvinism than the Determinist soteriology, and there is much more to Arminianism than the Non-Determinist soteriology.

For example, in my experience, most Methodists subscribe to Non-Determinist soteriology, but have an interpretation of the Eucharist which aligns with that of John Calvin.

So I really wish we would use the broader terminology of Determinism vs. Non-Determinism in order to avoid snagging ourselves on denominational specifics. Because, for example, in the case of “Calvinist Baptist” churches, and in the theology of prominent Baptist theologians of that orientation, such as Dr. Al Mohler, whom I regard with considerable admiration even though I do not agree with him on every issue of theology, there is actually relatively little in the beliefs and practices of these Baptist churches that is Calvinist per se, other than their shared belief in Determinism. When it comes to their views on sacramental theology, baptism, particularly infant baptism, the Eucharist, liturgics, Mariology, ecclesiology, and many other issues, the theology of John Calvin is vastly different than the theology of Al Mohler.

Despite being a Calvinist myself, I feel like I have more in common with Evangelicals and Baptists theologically and culturally than I do with the Reformed.

I don't know how important it is to be logically consistent. Couldn't determinism and free will both be true?

Like, we have libertarian free will, but God has ordained all things. It may seem contradictory, but perhaps our minds are too limited to reconcile the two?

There's also the oft overlooked Molinism, which I don't know if I agree with, but think is still worth considering.

 

[BobRyan]

Despite being a Calvinist myself, I feel like I have more in common with Evangelicals and Baptists theologically and culturally than I do with the Reformed.

I don't know how important it is to be logically consistent. Couldn't determinism and free will both be true?

Like, we have libertarian free will, but God has ordained all things. It may seem contradictory, but perhaps our minds are too limited to reconcile the two?

There's also the oft overlooked Molinism, which I don't know if I agree with, but think is still worth considering.

In your view does God "ordain a man to take God's name in vain" or does he simply "foreknow it"?

IF taking God's name in vain were ordained by God - why would we be told to repent of that which God ordains?

Or do you use the term "ordain" to mean "God foresaw it and then sovereignly decided not to stop it"?

As in "He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not" John 1:11

 

[Humble_Disciple]

John Calvin was not a Calvinist. The five points of Calvinism were written by the Council of Dort, in response to the five points of Arminianism.

John Calvin, unlike Calvinists today, rejected the doctrine of limited atonement in his own writings:

I am not going to debate Calvin’s view of limited atonement. Instead, I’d like to point out what I find most fascinating about Calvin on this subject: his willingness to speak in ways that the Bible itself speaks when it comes to these matters.

Take this Trinitarian prayer for example:

We offer up our prayers unto Thee, O most gracious God and most merciful Father, for all men in general, that as Thou art pleased to be acknowledged the Savior of the whole human race by the redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ Thy Son…

Or consider his thoughts on the pardoned thief:

Our Lord made effective for the thief his death and passion which he suffered and endured for all mankind.

Or his thoughts on Christ’s suffering:

Indeed, our Lord Jesus was offered to all the world… Our Lord Jesus suffered for all and there is neither great nor small who is not inexcusable today, for we can obtain salvation in him.
Why Calvin is More Biblical Than Some Calvinists

 

[9Rock9]

In your view does God "ordain a man to take God's name in vain" or does he simply "foreknow it"?

IF taking God's name in vain were ordained by God - why would we be told to repent of that which God ordains?

Or do you use the term "ordain" to mean "God foresaw it and then sovereignly decided not to stop it"?

As in "He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not" John 1:11

Well, I believe that Christ's death was enough for all sins you commit: past, present and future.

Our ordination is a gift from God. We cannot earn it. We all deserve eternal damnation, yet God is merciful.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Can anyone please point out for me anywhere in Calvin's writings in which he explicitly taught the doctrine of limited atonement?