Why I (a Calvinist) embrace Arminians/Synergists as fellow believers

[AndOne]

I want to explain why it is that I accept my arminian/synergistic friends as brothers and sisters in Christ. This issue has been coming up a lot lately and I wanted to start a thread that focused on it primarily.

The bottom line for me is that there are indeed passages of scripture that can indeed support the theological tenants of synergism - or at least scriptures that have that appearance. I believe that those who embrace arminianism do so because it is how they interpret scripture - weather it be from self-study, tradition, or influence - they are ultimately arminians because they are trusting in scripture.

Having said that - I believe the same thing regarding those who are monergistic/Calvinistic. Just as there are scriptures to support synergism - there are scriptures to support monergism.

So we come to our sotoreiological positions because of how we read scripture. For me personally - when looking at the whole of scripture I see it as being ultimately monergistic - but I understand how someone could come to a synergistic view.

It is the authority of scripture that binds us as brothers and sisters - and it is the reason why I can embrace you arminians as fellow christians. Ultimately we all love Jesus and are doing our best to be faithful to how we see things laid out in scripture. Just because we don't see it the same way doesn't mean we have to break the ties of fellowship. I go to church made up of both arminians and calvinists - and we all believe in Jesus and are trusting in Him for salvation.

So let the debate continue - but know this synergists - I love you as brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[SeraphimsCherub]

Originally Posted by Behe's Boy
I'm not a big fan of OSAS either - particularly because it has been associated with antinomianism over the years. Being saved is NOT a liscense to sin - and it is why I cringe every time I hear the term: Once Saved Always Saved. Folks please don't pin this on Calvinists - most OSAS proponents are reformed arminians - at least from what I've seen...


Yeah, but sadly the True saint, is burdened with the fact that he still Truly sins, and often has to be humbled By GOD'S Grace because of his own ignorance,and often times hypocritical judgment upon others that he can't even see that he is full of the same his self. Let's us alway's remember also that Jesus doesn't Save "righteous" people because their are none; but sinner's He Loves, and sinner's He Still Continues to Save as it is even this day! As amazing as that sounds, nevertheless it still Say's:

Romans 4:5 (KJV) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
In GOD'S Righteousness and not his own! That right their is a verse TO MARVEL OVER!!!, and it is a verse Who Gives a wretch like me GREAT COMFORT!!!

 

[Brother Chris]

I agree brothers, just because someone doesn't embrace the biblical teachings of election, predestination or eternal security, it doesn't mean they're not saved. The bible tells us to live up to the faith and knowledge that we have, and then God will reveal more to us. After I got saved, I had to shake off the insecurities of my performance and my obedience as the means to "stay saved." It only brought me fear and doubt. After I learned to trust and rest in Christ, and continue to do so, it is easier for me to live the Christian life. Trust and rest in Christ, and the good works will flow from there.

 

[Terene]

I do love all true brothers and sisters in Christ as well, and I am always open to rebuke when I have done something wrong. But let us abide in the Word of God, and not in some theology because it can indeed cause us to be biased at times. I myself, though my understanding may be labelled as synergism or arminian, am never a proponent of any theology. Thank you though Behe for clarifying your standpoint, God bless you in Christ much!

 

[oworm]

I agree brothers, just because someone doesn't embrace the biblical teachings of election, predestination or eternal security, it doesn't mean they're not saved. The bible tells us to live up to the faith and knowledge that we have, and then God will reveal more to us. After I got saved, I had to shake off the insecurities of my performance and my obedience as the means to "stay saved." It only brought me fear and doubt. After I learned to trust and rest in Christ, and continue to do so, it is easier for me to live the Christian life. Trust and rest in Christ, and the good works will flow from there.

A high percentage of Reformed Christians start out this way. I will never forget when I first heard the doctrines of grace preached. It was like being born again..............again!

 

[Jpark]

Ah Soteriology, the only place I can find solace and belonging.

These verses 1 peter 1:2, 22-23; 1 peter 3:21; heb. 10:22; heb. 9:14 - Passage Lookup - New American Standard Bible - BibleGateway.com

As well as John 1:13, 3:8, Rom. 8:13-14, John 13:8, James 4:8, 1 John 3:3, 2 Tim. 2:25, 2 Thess. 2:11-12, John 12:40, John 6:44

indicate that salvation is an alternating step process rather than a co-op experience (a misconception I once held: both God and man work on salvation simultaneously).

It's kind of like this:

God initiates, person is given opportunity, God helps (if the person fails but manifests desire for Him), person cleans himself, God protects and enables, person does God's will

To exclude man's involvement in salvation is denying the first bunch (and some of the second) of Scripture is it not?

 

[AndOne]

Ah Soteriology, the only place I can find solace and belonging.

These verses 1 peter 1:2, 22-23; 1 peter 3:21; heb. 10:22; heb. 9:14 - Passage Lookup - New American Standard Bible - BibleGateway.com

As well as John 1:13, 3:8, Rom. 8:13-14, John 13:8, James 4:8, 1 John 3:3, 2 Tim. 2:25, 2 Thess. 2:11-12, John 12:40, John 6:44

indicate that salvation is an alternating step process rather than a co-op experience (a misconception I once held: both God and man work on salvation simultaneously).

It's kind of like this:

God initiates, person is given opportunity, God helps (if the person fails but manifests desire for Him), person cleans himself, God protects and enables, person does God's will

To exclude man's involvement in salvation is denying the first bunch (and some of the second) of Scripture is it not?

I disagree with you - but I don't doubt your salvation brother - that is the point of this thread.

 

[msortwell]

A few points . . . First, a statement of the obvious, at times in discussions like this, we come dangerously close to saying, "As long as they sincerely believe their doctrine is consistent with Scripture, it's O.K." Clearly, sincerity is not enough, and we all understand that.

Second, I understand Arminians to be my brothers first because they PROFESS that they are totally dependent upon God's grace for their salvation in Christ. Further, if there is opportunity for me to observe their lives, and those lives give evidence of saving faith, I trust in their profession. Also necessary is that I see Arminians as making a serious attempt to understand Scripture and apply it to their doctrine and lives.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Sweet thread!

 

[billybtennessee]

in Christ.

All that truly matters. But no, we had to come up with all the big, theological names, and dogmatism concerning them. To the point that 'in Christ', is not acceptable with so many. But thanks for the generous offering, whatever folks add, and why.

 

[A New Dawn]

I agree with the sentiments of the OP. Since I believe in unconditional election, I do not believe that God saves us according to our theolog. Meaning If God could save me in my unorthodoxy, I have no doubt that my Arminian brothers and sisters are in Christ, just as I am.

 

[AndOne]

< staff edit >

Doctrine does matter - but its not the doctrine that saves but Christ alone who saves.

Serisously - most Arminians here will tell you that they are trusting in Christ alone for their salvation.

 

[A New Dawn]

< staff edit >

While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. All of us were sinners before we were saved. We had no correct doctrinal belief. We were in rebellion. That means that theology doesn't save. Christ saves. Yes, we need to hear the truth preached (as that is God's chosen method), but correct theology isn't required for God to save us. And if it is, then none of us would be saved.

 

[Charles Spurgeon]

< staff edit >

For years I was kinda looking to my having said a prayer to save me, but always felt unsaved... Then the Lord opened my heart, and I asked Him to save me, and He really did... then later on the Lord led me to become a Calvinist and that is what I am now.

But as for doctrine... most "Arminians" know that it's the Lord only... but I still wonder about a lot of people myself.

 

[nobdysfool]

I want to explain why it is that I accept my arminian/synergistic friends as brothers and sisters in Christ. This issue has been coming up a lot lately and I wanted to start a thread that focused on it primarily.

The bottom line for me is that there are indeed passages of scripture that can indeed support the theological tenants of synergism - or at least scriptures that have that appearance. I believe that those who embrace arminianism do so because it is how they interpret scripture - weather it be from self-study, tradition, or influence - they are ultimately arminians because they are trusting in scripture.

Having said that - I believe the same thing regarding those who are monergistic/Calvinistic. Just as there are scriptures to support synergism - there are scriptures to support monergism.

So we come to our sotoreiological positions because of how we read scripture. For me personally - when looking at the whole of scripture I see it as being ultimately monergistic - but I understand how someone could come to a synergistic view.

It is the authority of scripture that binds us as brothers and sisters - and it is the reason why I can embrace you arminians as fellow christians. Ultimately we all love Jesus and are doing our best to be faithful to how we see things laid out in scripture. Just because we don't see it the same way doesn't mean we have to break the ties of fellowship. I go to church made up of both arminians and calvinists - and we all believe in Jesus and are trusting in Him for salvation.

So let the debate continue - but know this synergists - I love you as brothers and sisters in Christ.

I wholeheartedly agree! I think this post should be made a "sticky" and put at the top of this page, for easy reference.

 

[ConsumedByHisCall]

While I appreciate the sentiment of the OP and would likewise consider my Calvinistic brethren as friends and fellow co-labors in Christ, I want to present another aspect of this discussion.

I submit that it is not logically consistent for Calvinists to believe that non-Calvinists are true believers (not that I'm attempting to get you to believe I'm not saved, but just to show that there is an inconsistency in the nature of the OP).

Calvinists, consider this question: If John Wesley (just as an example) was a true child of God then why didn't he believe correct soteriology, while other children of God accepted it?

Put another way: Why do you accept the "truth" of Calvinism while so many other believers throughout history didn't? Here I'll give you multiple choice:

1. Those who rejected Calvinism weren't really saved, they weren't true believers. The OP has already rejected this notion, so we can move to the next one.

2. Those believers who rejected Calvinism were not as good (smart/humble etc) or were too sinful (prideful etc) to accept it. I, on the other hand, am better (smarter/humble)... (If this is your reply then you must ask yourself, "Why?" What do you have you were not given by God?) This leads to boasting or claiming something of yourself that is good and no Calvinist would have this, so move on to the next one...

3. Those believers who rejected Calvinism weren't given the Grace by God to understand Calvinism for some reason unknown to us... (If this is your reply then you must admit that God didn't want some of his children to accept the 'truth' of how they are saved. You must ask why God would effectually bring his elect to accept the truth of the gospel but not the truth of soteriology as a whole? You must also admit that arguing with an Arminian who already knows the claims of Calvinism and has rejected them is a waste of time because unless God grants him this needed grace he will never accept this 'truth," in which case most of you need to sign off this forum)​

What say you?

 

[AndOne]

While I appreciate the sentiment of the OP and would likewise consider my Calvinistic brethren as friends and fellow co-labors in Christ, I want to present another aspect of this discussion.

I submit that it is not logically consistent for Calvinists to believe that non-Calvinists are true believers (not that I'm attempting to get you to believe I'm not saved, but just to show that there is an inconsistency in the nature of the OP).

Calvinists, consider this question: If John Wesley (just as an example) was a true child of God then why didn't he believe correct soteriology, while other children of God accepted it?

Put another way: Why do you accept the "truth" of Calvinism while so many other believers throughout history didn't? Here I'll give you multiple choice:

1. Those who rejected Calvinism weren't really saved, they weren't true believers. The OP has already rejected this notion, so we can move to the next one.

2. Those believers who rejected Calvinism were not as good (smart/humble etc) or were too sinful (prideful etc) to accept it. I, on the other hand, am better (smarter/humble)... (If this is your reply then you must ask yourself, "Why?" What do you have you were not given by God?) This leads to boasting or claiming something of yourself that is good and no Calvinist would have this, so move on to the next one...

3. Those believers who rejected Calvinism weren't given the Grace by God to understand Calvinism for some reason unknown to us... (If this is your reply then you must admit that God didn't want some of his children to accept the 'truth' of how they are saved. You must ask why God would effectually bring his elect to accept the truth of the gospel but not the truth of soteriology as a whole? You must also admit that arguing with an Arminian who already knows the claims of Calvinism and has rejected them is a waste of time because unless God grants him this needed grace he will never accept this 'truth," in which case most of you need to sign off this forum)
​

What say you?

None of the above for me. If thinking the way I do means I'm logically inconsistent then so be it! If a brother says they love Jesus and are saved by His grace alone - its good enough for me.

 

[ConsumedByHisCall]

None of the above for me. If thinking the way I do means I'm logically inconsistent then so be it! If a brother says they love Jesus and are saved by His grace alone - its good enough for me.

Are you sure you're a Calvinist?

 

[AndOne]

Are you sure you're a Calvinist?

150 percent sure - and you should know as well as anyone how I vehemently defend Calvinism here.

Don't let the naysayers fool you - most Calvinists think like I do. Even James White does. Despite his ongoing battle with Dave Hunt and Norman Geisler he still counts them as brothers.

I submit that those Calvinists who are quick to judge Arminians as non-Christian don't understand Arminianism.

 

[2thePoint]

I too appreciate the "olive branch" of the OP. But I must agree with Consumed that this is inconsistent with Calvinism. I would only add to his comment about statements like "I was once like you but now I see", that it not only makes no sense to convince anyone to change their mind, but also that it is condescending. I never tell Calvinists that "someday you'll see what I see", or "I was once like you", or "God will have to open your eyes". They just disagree with me, and I allow that people can do that without being stupid, ignorant, malicious, blind, or lost. Now I have deep objections to what they believe and vigorously defend against it. But the people themselves, I do not call lost or unenlightened or rebellious, or claim infallibility by labeling my view "the Biblical one". I hope someday that more Calvinists will show the same grace in return.

But I am encouraged that a few Calvinists at least recognize that we are saved by believing in the crucified and risen Jesus alone, not by works or Calvinism or Arminianism or anything else. God offered the whole world reconciliation through that simple faith, and all who accept are saved. I stand against any teaching that adds to or subtracts from that essential tenet of the faith.