awesome post
who today would be like arminians
most non-calvinists seem to declare they are neither calvinist nor arminian
what iyo would most non-c non-a's be?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
awesome postWe have to put Calvin into the historical context in which he lived. He was the first real Protestant theologian. Luther did a lot of teaching, but he never set out a systematic theology in the way that Calvin did. Calvin was a pioneer in the area of Protestant systematic theology and a lot of his theology is in reaction and opposition to much of the Roman Catholic theology that existed. Although he got a lot of things right, it has to be understood that his theology, just like everyone else's, is not perfect. It is just that he concentrated on predestination and election because Catholic theology ignored that side of God's dealing with mankind. My view of Catholic theology is that it is more allied to Arminianism which concentrates on man's responsibility to maintain his faith and a holy life before God. There is no assurance of salvation in Catholic theology. One has to wait until the judgment to find out whether his good works outweighed his sins or vice versa. Calvin attempted to put another view so as to give believers a better sense of assurance and therefore a better sense of peace and security in the faith. So, he didn't do it perfectly; so what? At least it was one step toward giving Christian believers a strong foundation of faith and security in Christ than they had before. It is too easy to look back 600 years and rubbish Calvin just because he got a few points wrong. After all, whose theology is absolutely perfect? We have the treasure in earthen vessels, so no one's theology is perfect.
Calvin's influence through the next 200 years brought a lot a folks to salvation and security in Christ. The Puritan and Welsh Revivals were based largely on Calvin's theology. George Whitefield was Calvinist, and he was possibly the most effective evangelist that America experienced before Billy Graham!
By the same token, John Wesley, who had Arminian leanings, had thousands of conversions and was the catalyst in starting a totally new denomination that remained fired up and effective for Christ for over 100 years after his death. The Methodist Holiness movement gave birth to the Pentecostal revival that brought thousands upon thousands into the kingdom of God. Some might not agree with some of the Pentecostal theology but it cannot be denied that it was and still is an effective force to getting people saved, much to the jealousy and envy of less powerful denominations. I would say that most of the criticism of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements arises out of just shear jealousy and envy because they are much more attractive to seekers after salvation than those who are critical of them.
If Arminians don't love Calvinists, then they don't love Jesus because He instructed us that loving others is the central principle of the gospel. In the same way, Calvinists who don't love Arminians are guilty of the same sin. So those taking sides against the other are just as bad as the other.
Let's face it, souls are won for Christ by both Arminian and Calvinist churches. Charles Spurgeon was Calvinist in his theology and he was perhaps the greatest soul-winner of the 19th Century and in all his sermons there is the appeal for people to choose Christ as Saviour. Who among us is going to rubbish him because of his Calvinist theology? Those who would like, as I read on another post, to throw Calvinists into the deepest pit of hell, are saying that they would throw George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, Billy Graham, Billy Sunday, and all the Puritan Calvinists who were burned at the stake into that pit as well! What a ridiculous thought, but then that's what religious intolerance does to people.
Again, if a believer can't satisfy God (because you somehow think that distinction is important) in the flesh, then a non-believer certainly cannot. But Paul does indicate that he's speaking of non-believers when we hit verse 9.Paul is talking about how those who live by the flesh cannot please God, not about their inability to respond to the gospel in faith. The term please in rom 8:8, areskó, means 'satisfy' - to please with the connotation of service rendered, to make good on something so meet expectations - winning favor by especially by being in moral agreement. Paul is speaking of ongoing lifestyle/service in this passage - who controls you.
Again, if a believer can't satisfy God (because you somehow think that distinction is important) in the flesh, then a non-believer certainly cannot. But Paul does indicate that he's speaking of non-believers when we hit verse 9.
You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. - Romans 8:9
Again, you might have an argument except for verse 9. That nullifies your view.How do we gain the spirit and pass from death in the flesh to newness of life? Faith!! (John 5:24, Rom 6, Rom 7, etc.) The Rom 8:8-9 passage is speaking of who controls our lives and whether our ongoing service is pleasing to God. It is in no way restricting those in the flesh from turning to faith and receiving the spirit.
Charles Finney the powerful American evangelist and Bible teacher of the early 19th Century said that he was halfway between Calvinist and Arminian. He believed in eternal security but also believed that people need to make a choice to receive Christ. He was fiercely opposed by the ultra Calvinist Presbyterian Church of his time and that is the reason why they would not ordain him as a full Presbyterian minister so that he could have a parish of his own. His ordination was as an itinerate evangelist. Nevertheless, he had a powerful ministry and wherever he went there was revival.awesome post
who today would be like arminians
most non-calvinists seem to declare they are neither calvinist nor arminian
what iyo would most non-c non-a's be?
amenCharles Finney the powerful American evangelist and Bible teacher of the early 19th Century said that he was halfway between Calvinist and Arminian. He believed in eternal security but also believed that people need to make a choice to receive Christ. He was fiercely opposed by the ultra Calvinist Presbyterian Church of his time and that is the reason why they would not ordain him as a full Presbyterian minister so that he could have a parish of his own. His ordination was as an itinerate evangelist. Nevertheless, he had a powerful ministry and wherever he went there was revival.
I think that there are extremes at both ends of the spectrum. We want to have the assurance of our salvation and not feel that we can be saved today and lost tomorrow, which the scripture does not support. But neither does the scripture fully support God making the absolute decision whether a person is saved or lost as some extreme Calvinists believe. The scripture supports an element of choice on the part of the sinner. The expression, "Repent ye therefore and be converted...etc." is an instruction that suggests an element of choice in which the sinner will follow that instruction or not and then take the consequences of his choice.
Because we cannot know exactly how Election works, we cannot say for sure that God makes the choice whether a person is saved or not. But we can know that God initiates an approach to a sinner and the sinner then has to respond. We know that it is not God who blinds folk to the Gospel. The scripture in Romans says that there are those who are blinded, but it is the god of this world, the devil, who blinds them. God is not willing that any should perish but that all may be saved, but the reality is that not all will be saved, because of the different responses to the gospel. Jesus made that plain in His parable of the seed sower.
I think it is too easy to assume that people are saved and lost because God has a list of the elect and a list of those who are destined to hell. This is simplistic and extreme theology. But it is also simplistic and extreme to say that people will be saved or lost based exclusively on their choice - that God sits back and does nothing to draw people to Christ.
So, the debate will go on and on without a definite conclusion, and so all we can do is to share the gospel, live a life that is a good example of being a Christian, and trust God that He will save those who respond to the gospel and who will embrace Christ as their Saviour.
How about "Christian believer" "Born again saint" "Bible-believer" ? They are good names and don't reveal any theological bias.amen
i find it true that most people are neither calvinist nor arminian
i guess there is no name for us though
is there any group today that would be considered arminian?
amen - thank youHow about "Christian believer" "Born again saint" "Bible-believer" ? They are good names and don't reveal any theological bias.
Wesleyan Methodists and Nazarenes are Arminian in their theology. Certain Pentecostal groups that came out from the Methodist Holiness movement have a strong Arminian emphasis. The first guy that gave that theory was Arminius (no surprises there). There may be a good account of him and what he believed on Wikipedia.
There is no theological name for them. I don't think God cares too much about these labels, because that's just what they are. He looks at our hearts to see that we love Him and love others. That's good enough for Him. Theological labels are just there so religious people can put us in their particular boxes. We can refuse to be put into someone's theological or religious box and tell them that we just love Jesus, that's all.amen - thank you
what i meant was theologically is there a name for those that are neither arminian or calvinist?
or is all theology compared to those 2 extremes?
interesting how there are 2 extremes and nothing in the middle ground - no theological ideology that is a middle ground - especially since most of us are in the middle ground
are catholics arminian?
of the calvinist groups - what are the differences between them? - which of them are closer to those of us who reject both extremes?
God Bless you my friend
i appreciate your excellent understanding/knowledge
Note the box you just put some folks in.There is no theological name for them. I don't think God cares too much about these labels, because that's just what they are. He looks at our hearts to see that we love Him and love others. That's good enough for Him. Theological labels are just there so religious people can put us in their particular boxes. We can refuse to be put into someone's theological or religious box and tell them that we just love Jesus, that's all.
We are all in some mould or another and some a more mouldier than others!!Note the box you just put some folks in.
It is the God of this world who blinds those who do not obey God. All of the ancients agree that by God of this world, the Supreme Being is meant.Charles Finney the powerful American evangelist and Bible teacher of the early 19th Century said that he was halfway between Calvinist and Arminian. He believed in eternal security but also believed that people need to make a choice to receive Christ. He was fiercely opposed by the ultra Calvinist Presbyterian Church of his time and that is the reason why they would not ordain him as a full Presbyterian minister so that he could have a parish of his own. His ordination was as an itinerate evangelist. Nevertheless, he had a powerful ministry and wherever he went there was revival.
I think that there are extremes at both ends of the spectrum. We want to have the assurance of our salvation and not feel that we can be saved today and lost tomorrow, which the scripture does not support. But neither does the scripture fully support God making the absolute decision whether a person is saved or lost as some extreme Calvinists believe. The scripture supports an element of choice on the part of the sinner. The expression, "Repent ye therefore and be converted...etc." is an instruction that suggests an element of choice in which the sinner will follow that instruction or not and then take the consequences of his choice.
Because we cannot know exactly how Election works, we cannot say for sure that God makes the choice whether a person is saved or not. But we can know that God initiates an approach to a sinner and the sinner then has to respond. We know that it is not God who blinds folk to the Gospel. The scripture in Romans says that there are those who are blinded, but it is the god of this world, the devil, who blinds them. God is not willing that any should perish but that all may be saved, but the reality is that not all will be saved, because of the different responses to the gospel. Jesus made that plain in His parable of the seed sower.
I think it is too easy to assume that people are saved and lost because God has a list of the elect and a list of those who are destined to hell. This is simplistic and extreme theology. But it is also simplistic and extreme to say that people will be saved or lost based exclusively on their choice - that God sits back and does nothing to draw people to Christ.
So, the debate will go on and on without a definite conclusion, and so all we can do is to share the gospel, live a life that is a good example of being a Christian, and trust God that He will save those who respond to the gospel and who will embrace Christ as their Saviour.[/QUOTE
amen - thank you
what i meant was theologically is there a name for those that are neither arminian or calvinist?
or is all theology compared to those 2 extremes?
interesting how there are 2 extremes and nothing in the middle ground - no theological ideology that is a middle ground - especially since most of us are in the middle ground
are catholics arminian?
of the calvinist groups - what are the differences between them? - which of them are closer to those of us who reject both extremes?
God Bless you my friend
i appreciate your excellent understanding/knowledge
It is the God of this world who blinds those who do not obey God. All of the ancients agree that by God of this world, the Supreme Being is meant.
Just as He hardens the heart of those who oppose His true sayings and causes them to believe a lie.
Again, you might have an argument except for verse 9. That nullifies your view.
thank you for this answerThere are other groups who are neither Arminian nor Calvinist that have developed their own theologies. Molinists, for example, have a theological system that tries to be a middle ground between Calvinism and Arminianism What is Molinism and is it Biblical?. 4 point Calvinists (who agree with TULIP except for Limited Atonement) I believe is referred to as Amarydallism? Thomism is another proposed theological system, as well as Congruism. And from what I have read of Pascal's provincial letters, it appears there used to be many different groups with competing views and philosophies on soteriology (that all seemed a bit more concerned with accusing each other of heresy than actually discussing the topic for the aid of the church.)
I find many of these systems to be interesting to study as they attempt to explain a philosophy of salvation, but most come down to errors of leaving what scripture says to speculate through human philosophy in certain parts or try to build a doctrine off of one or two out of context verses. While those can be interesting proposals or ideas, they should never be treated at the level of gospel truth or clear Biblical teachings.
There isn't really a label right now for those who don't ascribe to any particular systemized philosophy on the subject of salvation - but I'm not sure it's important to have one.
thank you for this answer
exactly what i wanted to know
so does that mean that many of the theological terms apply to calvinism and arminianism?
some of the terms in this thread don't even remotely describe the non-c non-a theology most of us hold.
makes senseEach group tends to have its own terms. Sometimes the same term is used (efficient grace, total depravity, etc.) but each group means something different by it. Sometimes different terms are used that mean the same thing. [That was a recurring theme in the Provincial letters. Pascal would interview one group A and find that the terms they used were the same as another group B, but the groups vastly disagreed, whereas group A was busy attacking another group C that mostly agreed with them but used a different term! They might label the group with the opposing term 'heretics' even though the beliefs aligned while giving group B a pass on their opposing views because they used the same terminology.] Some terms are generally only used by one group (Synergism, for example, is almost exclusively used by Calvinists in reference to non-Calvinists.)
Differing term use (or similar terms with different meanings) is one thing that makes it so difficult a topic to discuss between two groups or individuals that disagree. Without a common set of agreed on definitions, the discussions can end up going in circles.
Thank you dear brother . Apart from someone totally lost who Jesus Christ God decided to show mercy, I am not sure where I fit in "christian theology" . It seems that most of our understandings of Paul's epistles ( which I do hold to due to what he suffered to be our Apostle ) were formulated by a christianity ( either Catholic or Protestant ) that in certain instances had already been busier debating than serving with the added problem of being aligned with world powers , prices and kings . For myself , I am , I feel still working out my salvation while trying to engage believers to be more earnest and less caught up in this world which perishes and reach out to unbelievers who see no difference between believers and the world . Truly perilous times I believe. may God grant you grace as you follow the Lamb of God who died that we might live ..May we die that He may live in us . Peacewell said
i was thinking something similar - when we all get to heaven we will feel like fools for fighting over things that will be proven wrong
we are all trying our best to understand the things God says to us in scripture
the humble thing to do would be discuss these ideas as people who THINK we understand it correctly - but KNOW that only God will prove to be infallible - and our understanding severely faulty
God Bless you for an excellent informative post
ps. i'm not arminian or calvinist either - but i like some of the theology from both camps
amenThank you dear brother . Apart from someone totally lost who Jesus Christ God decided to show mercy, I am not sure where I fit in "christian theology" . It seems that most of our understandings of Paul's epistles ( which I do hold to due to what he suffered to be our Apostle ) were formulated by a christianity ( either Catholic or Protestant ) that in certain instances had already been busier debating than serving with the added problem of being aligned with world powers , prices and kings . For myself , I am , I feel still working out my salvation while trying to engage believers to be more earnest and less caught up in this world which perishes and reach out to unbelievers who see no difference between believers and the world . Truly perilous times I believe. may God grant you grace as you follow the Lamb of God who died that we might live ..May we die that He may live in us . Peace
The ever-ready reply of Calvinists to objections is, "You don't understand Calvinism!" In truth it seems that many opponents understand Calvinism much better than so-called Calvinists. In fact the common objections are well-founded in John Calvin's own words. The only misrepresentation happening is on the part of Calvinists. Let's take three common issues and show why they are valid criticisms in light of Calvin's own words: 1) God authoring evil, 2) God predestining to Hell, and 3) free will.
1. God is the author of evil
...how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be, not by His will but by His permission... It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing, but the author of them... (John Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God, 10:11)
The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)
thieves and murderers, and other evildoers, are instruments of divine providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute judgments which he has resolved to inflict. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 5)
2. God predestines to Hell
…it is utterly inconsistent to transfer the preparation for destruction to anything but God’s secret plan… God’s secret plan is the cause of hardening. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)
Many professing a desire to defend the Deity from an individual charge admit the doctrine of election, but deny that any one is reprobated. This they do ignorantly and childishly, since there could be no election without its opposite, reprobation. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)
…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)
With Augustine I say: the Lord has created those whom he unquestionably foreknew would go to destruction. This has happened because he has willed. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 5)
3. There is no free will
We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)
Creatures are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3)
God causes everything and of necessity, that is, in accordance with his providence. (John Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, 1996, pg. 253)
Everything that happens, happens of necessity, as God has ordained. (John Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, 1996, pg. 258)
Central to [Calvin's] case is the distinction between necessity and coercion.[74] Necessity he defines as "a fixed, steady state in which a thing cannot be otherwise than it is." He agrees with Aristotle that necessity is the opposite of "the existence of alternative possibilities" (335). The necessity to sin means that sinners cannot other than sin. (Lane, 31)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?