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

[2thePoint]

< staff edit >

You haven't answered my question, though I did answer yours. You can ask me about my opinion of Calvinism's definition of sovereignty in some other thread another time. Right now I'm trying to stay on topic and address the issue of whether Calvinists should accuse Arminians of being reprobates. My answer about the Jesus I believe in should suffice.

So what is your Jesus like? How is he different from mine?

 

[A New Dawn]

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.

I agree with this 100%!

 

[A New Dawn]

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.

I don't think you have ever seen anyone on here state that they are saved by the works of Calvin (or Calvinism). However, God didn't offer the whole world reconciliation. He offered the call to reconciliation, which only those who have been regenerated will hear.

 

[2thePoint]

I don't think you have ever seen anyone on here state that they are saved by the works of Calvin (or Calvinism). However, God didn't offer the whole world reconciliation. He offered the call to reconciliation, which only those who have been regenerated will hear.

Calvinists have expressed doubt that anyone not accepting their definition of election is probably a reprobate. In this board. More than once. I think that may have been part of the reason the thread was started. So clearly, if salvation can be denied on the basis of rejection of Calvinism's doctrine of election, then they are indeed saying Calvinism is what saves.

But again, to stay on topic, I won't be dragged into another debate on whether God offered the whole world reconciliation; that horse has been beaten to a thousand deaths.

 

[2thePoint]

< staff edit >

Added, you say? I've added nothing, but Calvinism adds "election".

I agree that salvation is by grace, but that faith is contrasted with works in the scriptures. It was all God's idea, including allowing us to freely choose, because that's the only way for love to be genuine. But faith is not a work, even though it is exercised by man.

At any rate, the question is not whether "Arminianism adds the work of human faith", but whether I believe in the Jesus who died for me and rose again. To that central tenet I neither add nor subtract.

Therefore, you are in danger of falsely accusing Arminians of adding to the gospel (while ignoring what Calvinism adds, by your criteria), and calling those with the Holy Spirit unsaved-- a very dangerous thing to do.

Once again: I believe in the Jesus who died and rose again, not merely to escape hell but to be reconciled to God and return his love. I trust only him to save me.

Therefore, I am saved according to the scriptures. I have the right Jesus, the right God, the right Spirit, nothing added or subtracted. If you say I need more then you add to the gospel.

 

[A New Dawn]

Added, you say? I've added nothing, but Calvinism adds "election".

I agree that salvation is by grace, but that faith is contrasted with works in the scriptures. It was all God's idea, including allowing us to freely choose, because that's the only way for love to be genuine. But faith is not a work, even though it is exercised by man.

At any rate, the question is not whether "Arminianism adds the work of human faith", but whether I believe in the Jesus who died for me and rose again. To that central tenet I neither add nor subtract.

Therefore, you are in danger of falsely accusing Arminians of adding to the gospel (while ignoring what Calvinism adds, by your criteria), and calling those with the Holy Spirit unsaved-- a very dangerous thing to do.

Once again: I believe in the Jesus who died and rose again, not merely to escape hell but to be reconciled to God and return his love. I trust only him to save me.

Therefore, I am saved according to the scriptures. I have the right Jesus, the right God, the right Spirit, nothing added or subtracted. If you say I need more then you add to the gospel.

How are Calvinist's adding election when it is a Biblical principle?

 

[2thePoint]

How are Calvinist's adding election when it is a Biblical principle?

How are Arminians adding works when the Bible says faith is not a work?

 

[A New Dawn]

Faith is a work when one must come up with it on their own or make the decision to accept it. It isn't a work if it is given as a gift and our hearts regenerated so we don't have to decide to accept it or not.

 

[2thePoint]

Faith is a work when one must come up with it on their own or make the decision to accept it. It isn't a work if it is given as a gift and our hearts regenerated so we don't have to decide to accept it or not.

All through scripture we only read of people exercising faith, not where it came from. If I exercise faith in Jesus, profess his name publicly, trust him for my salvation, am reconciled, etc., then what theory you may have on where this faith came from is irrelevant. That's my point: it is NOT the Calvinist view of the origin of faith that saved, neither the Calvinist view of the extent of the atonement, or the number of the elect, or anything else someone may try to add.

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" is all it says. I believe. I am saved. Period.

I cannot overemphasize this distinction between the exercise of faith in the right Jesus and all theories on how that came about. How else can I say it? How else can scripture say it? Who dares to call me lost or reprobate because I refuse to add or subtract from this simple statement of faith?

 

[A New Dawn]

All through scripture we only read of people exercising faith, not where it came from. If I exercise faith in Jesus, profess his name publicly, trust him for my salvation, am reconciled, etc., then what theory you may have on where this faith came from is irrelevant. That's my point: it is NOT the Calvinist view of the origin of faith that saved, neither the Calvinist view of the extent of the atonement, or the number of the elect, or anything else someone may try to add.

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" is all it says. I believe. I am saved. Period.

I cannot overemphasize this distinction between the exercise of faith in the right Jesus and all theories on how that came about. How else can I say it? How else can scripture say it? Who dares to call me lost or reprobate because I refuse to add or subtract from this simple statement of faith?

I would like to remind everyone that to state or imply that another member is not a Christian here is a violation of the rules.

 

[Eleiou]

It's okay to think it and believe it......... just not "pc" on this forum to passionately express what one believes or thinks...........

 

[A New Dawn]

It's okay to think it and believe it......... just not "pc" on this forum to passionately express what one believes or thinks...........

This whole thread is dedicated to the belief that we (Calvinists) do consider those who's beliefs differ from ours to be brothers and sisters in Christ. It's pretty rude, IMO, in a thread dedicated to that purpose, for someone who does believe differently to imply that we are not Christian. Just sayin'.

 

[AndOne]

By this I submit most Calvinists don't understand Arminianism. I suggest you read Owen's A Display of Arminianism and the Death of Death also try Calvin's Calvinism/Treatise on Predestination. Though Calvin refutes Roman Catholics, his arguements would also apply to Arminians for they hold to the same belief about man's ability.

Thanks but I part ways with Calvin on more than one issue - this is one of them. Same goes for Owen - whose writings I love for the most part.

 

[Eleiou]

In "open" debate, I'd think one would take the good and the bad together......... just sayin'

 

[Super Kal]

I would more suggest Roger Olson's Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities if you want to fully understand what Arminianism is

There are a few other books that I could recommend, but for the time being, that is the best book I can offer. It deals specifically with some of the misinterpretations and misconceptions that Calvinism has given over the years.

 

[Eleiou]

............ I won't be dragged into another debate on whether God offered the whole world reconciliation; that horse has been beaten to a thousand deaths.

"ites"........ O'........

where are you "ites"?

 

[A New Dawn]

In "open" debate, I'd think one would take the good and the bad together......... just sayin'

This isn't a debate thread, it is an affirmation thread. But either way, it is still against the rules. Just sayin'.

 

[Eleiou]

This isn't a debate thread, it is an affirmation thread.

Really? An affirmation is not what I took from the OP........ and I hold to a Reformed Soteriology.

But either way, it is still against the rules. Just sayin'.

As many Christians know objectively, "rules" without clear guidelines are subjective........... just sayin'

 

[A New Dawn]

I'd like to remind everyone that the topic is "Why I (a Calvinist) embrace Arminians/Synergists as fellow believers". It really started out as a nice thread. Can we get back to that?

 

[Eleiou]

Really? An affirmation is not what I took from the OP........ and I hold to a Reformed Soteriology.

Ickkkkk......... I was utterly wrong about Dave's intent

He can speak as he wishes.