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

[MDC]

You

Let me first preface my post by saying I am neither a Calvinist nor Arminian.

From scanning through this thread, I get the sense people are saying a person can be saved no matter what they believe.

You posted "Just as there are scriptures to support synergism - there are scriptures to support monergism." These are two polar opposites, mutually exclusive positions. Since the bible does not contradict itself with all verses harmonizing then it is impossible both can be true at the same time. So people can be on polar opposites on sotoeriological issues and both can be saved? How is this possible? It can't be.

Further confusion. If we assume Calvinism is "truth" (John 17:17) when it says before the world began God has already pre-chose certain individuals and those individuals alone will be the ones saved. Yet Arminians who do not believe this 'truth' can still be saved anyway even though they do not believe this 'truth'? On the other hand, if Calvinism is not truth, yet Calvinist can be saved not having "the truth"?


Seems this thread is saying truth is relative, that is, truth is whatever one makes it to be in that each person can believe what they want (Calvinism, Arminianism or some other 'ism') as to how man is saved and somehow each person is right therefore can be saved while believing polar opposite ideas.
Does truth matter?

Let me first preface my post by saying I am neither a Calvinist nor Arminian.

From scanning through this thread, I get the sense people are saying a person can be saved no matter what they believe.

You posted "Just as there are scriptures to support synergism - there are scriptures to support monergism." These are two polar opposites, mutually exclusive positions. Since the bible does not contradict itself with all verses harmonizing then it is impossible both can be true at the same time. So people can be on polar opposites on sotoeriological issues and both can be saved? How is this possible? It can't be.

Further confusion. If we assume Calvinism is "truth" (John 17:17) when it says before the world began God has already pre-chose certain individuals and those individuals alone will be the ones saved. Yet Arminians who do not believe this 'truth' can still be saved anyway even though they do not believe this 'truth'? On the other hand, if Calvinism is not truth, yet Calvinist can be saved not having "the truth"?


Seems this thread is saying truth is relative, that is, truth is whatever one makes it to be in that each person can believe what they want (Calvinism, Arminianism or some other 'ism') as to how man is saved and somehow each person is right therefore can be saved while believing polar opposite ideas.
Does truth matter?

Let me first preface my post by saying I am neither a Calvinist nor Arminian.

From scanning through this thread, I get the sense people are saying a person can be saved no matter what they believe.

You posted "Just as there are scriptures to support synergism - there are scriptures to support monergism." These are two polar opposites, mutually exclusive positions. Since the bible does not contradict itself with all verses harmonizing then it is impossible both can be true at the same time. So people can be on polar opposites on sotoeriological issues and both can be saved? How is this possible? It can't be.

Further confusion. If we assume Calvinism is "truth" (John 17:17) when it says before the world began God has already pre-chose certain individuals and those individuals alone will be the ones saved. Yet Arminians who do not believe this 'truth' can still be saved anyway even though they do not believe this 'truth'? On the other hand, if Calvinism is not truth, yet Calvinist can be saved not having "the truth"?


Seems this thread is saying truth is relative, that is, truth is whatever one makes it to be in that each person can believe what they want (Calvinism, Arminianism or some other 'ism') as to how man is saved and somehow each person is right therefore can be saved while believing polar opposite ideas.
Does truth matter?

synergism is works salvation and denies the gospel of grace and the person and work of Christ. So yes they are polar opposites and what we call "Calvinism" is the truth

 

[TheSeabass]

I see them as my brothers and sisters in Christ as well since I don't see minor soteriological misunderstandings as a matter of salvation.

If this were true, then the bible is unimportant, meaningless, useless. It is a book full of contradictions, confusion and vanity.

 

[TheSeabass]

so you believe we must have every inch of the law understood in 100% accuracy? I suppose the only person that will be in heaven is Jesus as no one has perfect doctrine, including you and me. we're doomed!

I do find it interesting that you reject synergism but would say that someone who doesn't get baptized and doesn't have all doctrine 100% correct will be denied heaven even if they do profess Christ and put their faith in him. seems like works justification to me.

2 john 1:9-10 is speaking of those who are heretics that know the truth fully and reject it for something else. that's gonna be different from the person who has had Ezekiel 36:26-28 happen to them and is still growing in their faith. muslims, buddists, gnostics, etc have another doctrine other than Christ. they reject Christ and they will not receive salvation.

again, the thief on the cross did not have perfect doctrine, was he saved or not?

Where does the bible teach one can be in error or does not have to know the doctrine of Christ yet still be saved?

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

2 John 1:9-10 is speaking about "whosoever" and "any" that do not have the doctrine of Christ. The Christians to whom Jon was writing could not even become a Christian apart from the doctrine of Christ.

Can men not know Christ's doctrine on marriage and live together in adultery and plead ignorance and still be saved?

 

[TheSeabass]

You



synergism is works salvation and denies the gospel of grace and the person and work of Christ. So yes they are polar opposites and what we call "Calvinism" is the truth

No one can be saved without obeying Christ, Hebrews 5:9.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

If this were true, then the bible is unimportant, meaningless, useless. It is a book full of contradictions, confusion and vanity.

hopefully you didn't break your legs making that huge logical leap from misunderstanding on matters of adiaphora to the bible being meaningless.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Where does the bible teach one can be in error or does not have to know the doctrine of Christ yet still be saved?

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

2 John 1:9-10 is speaking about "whosoever" and "any" that do not have the doctrine of Christ. The Christians to whom Jon was writing could not even become a Christian apart from the doctrine of Christ.

Can men not know Christ's doctrine on marriage and live together in adultery and plead ignorance and still be saved?

I already gave you an example of someone who didn't have perfect doctrine with the thief on the cross. was he saved or not? Jesus said he was and that was because did the one thing that is required for salvation which is to put his faith in Christ. did Christ not know this man's heart?

if a man gets saved while in an adulterous relationship and dies before knowing that relationship is sinful then yes he can be saved because justification doesn't depend on man's work but on God's mercy.

the verse you keep bringing up refers to those who know the law of God and reject it. it isn't speaking of those growing in their faith that don't have full understanding of matters of adiaphora.

 

[FaithfulPilgrim]

I'm neutral on the monergist/synergistic debate because I see both sides and find both to be pretty convincing.

I was raised Southern Baptist, and so I intensely studied both views since they are both found in the SBC.

I'm thinking about becoming an Anabaptist, and they definitely seem more Arminian and are definitely not Calvinist. I understand their feelings given the history, but my Calvinist sympathies is what kept me away from the Anabaptist movement for awhile.

I don't think denominations should be based on Calvinism or Arminianism, as that will just lead to unnecessary schisms.

 

[OzSpen]

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.

AndOne,

Congratulations! Yours is a very different perspective to that of monergistic Calvinist, R C Sproul, who claims that 'Arminians are Christians, Barely'.

Oz

 

[TheSeabass]

hopefully you didn't break your legs making that huge logical leap from misunderstanding on matters of adiaphora to the bible being meaningless.

You cannot have the bible on one hand that is perfect, flawless, "the truth" where all verses harmonize and on the other hand at the same time have 1000's of religious groups that all disagree and contradict each other yet they are all holding the truth, perfection of the bible. It is not possible, not logically, goes against common sense, sanity.

 

[TheSeabass]

I already gave you an example of someone who didn't have perfect doctrine with the thief on the cross. was he saved or not? Jesus said he was and that was because did the one thing that is required for salvation which is to put his faith in Christ. did Christ not know this man's heart?

if a man gets saved while in an adulterous relationship and dies before knowing that relationship is sinful then yes he can be saved because justification doesn't depend on man's work but on God's mercy.

the verse you keep bringing up refers to those who know the law of God and reject it. it isn't speaking of those growing in their faith that don't have full understanding of matters of adiaphora.

You do not know that the thief did not have perfect doctrine. For all we know he may have once been a disciple of Christ that fell away into a life of crime and was repentant of his sins on his cross to Christ. AS it has been proven time and again, the thief was not under Christ's NT doctrine but lived under the OT law.

You cannot show one example of one under the NT gospel that was justified while doing no works. 1 John 3:10 as long as one continues to not do God's righteousness, then one continues to not be of God. Therefore doing no works in doing God's righteousness leaves one not of God.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

You cannot have the bible on one hand that is perfect, flawless, "the truth" where all verses harmonize and on the other hand at the same time have 1000's of religious groups that all disagree and contradict each other yet they are all holding the truth, perfection of the bible. It is not possible, not logically, goes against common sense, sanity.

who made such a claim?

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

You do not know that the thief did not have perfect doctrine. For all we know he may have once been a disciple of Christ that fell away into a life of crime and was repentant of his sins on his cross to Christ. AS it has been proven time and again, the thief was not under Christ's NT doctrine but lived under the OT law.

You cannot show one example of one under the NT gospel that was justified while doing no works. 1 John 3:10 as long as one continues to not do God's righteousness, then one continues to not be of God. Therefore doing no works in doing God's righteousness leaves one not of God.

you're making an argument from silence with the thief on the cross.

if all of us must have absolutely perfect doctrine than none of us will be saved.

 

[TheSeabass]

who made such a claim?

The claim is made over all the religious forums on the internet. I cannot count how many times I have seen threads where a poster considers another poster his "brother in Christ" even though both posters hold totally opposite, mutually exclusive theological positions on various issues including salvation. Evidently to them the bible means nothing, each person can believe whatever he chooses to believe and they all get to heaven taking different paths.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

The claim is made over all the religious forums on the internet. I cannot count how many times I have seen threads where a poster considers another poster his "brother in Christ" even though both posters hold totally opposite, mutually exclusive theological positions on various issues including salvation.

it would depend on what those issues are.

 

[TheSeabass]

you're making an argument from silence with the thief on the cross.

if all of us must have absolutely perfect doctrine than none of us will be saved.

What verse says one can be wrong about the doctrine of Christ and still be saved? 2 John 1:9-10

Who gets to choose for the rest of us as to what doctrine of Christ one can be wrong about yet still be saved?

 

[TheSeabass]

it would depend on what those issues are.

They disagree over how one is saved.
Disagree over marriage divorce and remarriage
Disagree over how worship is to be observed

Above are just 3 issues out of many.

Who decides which of these issues are not important, therefore one does not have to be right about it?
Why did God give these doctrinal issues if they are not really important anyway?
Or who decides for everyone else which of these is important and must be followed?

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

What verse says one can be wrong about the doctrine of Christ and still be saved? 2 John 1:9-10

that verse is speaking of a specific doctrine, namely the incarnation of Christ. according to that verse those who reject the incarnation have rejected Christ.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

They disagree over how one is saved.
Disagree over marriage divorce and remarriage
Disagree over how worship is to be observed

Above are just 3 issues out of many.

Who decides which of these issues are not important, therefore one does not have to be right about it?
Why did God give these doctrinal issues if they are not really important anyway?
Or who decides for everyone else which of these is important and must be followed?

depends on whether one knows something fully and outright rejects it or they have yet to come to a full understanding of something.

 

[TheSeabass]

that verse is speaking of a specific doctrine, namely the incarnation of Christ. according to that verse those who reject the incarnation have rejected Christ.

The doctrine of Christ covers many different issues.

Interesting, in another section of this forum there is a thread where the OP asks this question:

What is stopping me from giving up my pursuit of truth and simply relying on what the church closest to my beliefs says both theologically and philosophically?

The idea behind the question is very typical that there is not ONE body and ONE faith. Instead, there are many faiths and one can simply "shop around" for a faith that fits their personal ideas, lifestyle. There cannot be any "church shopping" when there is just one and never has been more than one.

The truth is not found in contradictions.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

The doctrine of Christ covers many different issues.

but the verse you quoted only deals with one which is the rejection of Christ.