You Don't Have to be Calvinist to be Reformed

[nate895]

Historically, true Arminianism (not the semi-Pelagian or other doctrines that call themselves Arminian) comes from a strictly Reformed theology. After all, Arminius himself was taught by Theodore Beza, Calvin's handpicked successor. His followers were called the Remonstrants in the Netherlands, and after the Synod of Dort they formed the Remonstrant Reformed Bortherhood and published their Confession of Faith in 1621 (which was only translated into English in 2005). The fundamental assumptions underlie both theologies, and those are the Five Solas. The difference in the end is that Arminians believe God gives a resistible grace unto all men, which, as a Reformed/Classical/Reformation Arminian, seems to be the most natural reading of the Holy Scriptures. Ultimately the only one responsible for salvation in both theologies is God Himself.

Another point that should be stressed that Reformed does not equal Calvinist is the fact that soteriology isn't the only theological topic there is out there. Many Arminians agree with Reformed churches on all the other theological issues besides soteriology. Why is it that Reformed must be defined by this one issue when this is not historically the case?

Given this evidence, the Reformed Church should not be defined by strict adherence to the five points of Calvinism, but rather to strict adherence to the Five Solas:

Sola Scriptura
Sola Fide
Sola Gratia
Solo Christo
Soli Deo Gloria.

Also, adherence to other doctrines espoused by the Reformers (including Arminius and his followers) should be what defines the Reformed Church, not Calvinism. This is not to say Calvinists could not consider themselves the true heirs of the Reformers, but they should not claim to be the only heirs.

 

[itisdeliciouscake]

hate to break it to ya, but that's the definition of 'Reformed'.

It's synonymous with 'Calvinist'.

That's just the way everyone uses the term 'reformed'. You're not going to be able to change that....

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Historically, true Arminianism (not the semi-Pelagian or other doctrines that call themselves Arminian) comes from a strictly Reformed theology. After all, Arminius himself was taught by Theodore Beza, Calvin's handpicked successor. His followers were called the Remonstrants in the Netherlands, and after the Synod of Dort they formed the Remonstrant Reformed Bortherhood and published their Confession of Faith in 1621 (which was only translated into English in 2005). The fundamental assumptions underlie both theologies, and those are the Five Solas. The difference in the end is that Arminians believe God gives a resistible grace unto all men, which, as a Reformed/Classical/Reformation Arminian, seems to be the most natural reading of the Holy Scriptures. Ultimately the only one responsible for salvation in both theologies is God Himself.

Another point that should be stressed that Reformed does not equal Calvinist is the fact that soteriology isn't the only theological topic there is out there. Many Arminians agree with Reformed churches on all the other theological issues besides soteriology. Why is it that Reformed must be defined by this one issue when this is not historically the case?

Given this evidence, the Reformed Church should not be defined by strict adherence to the five points of Calvinism, but rather to strict adherence to the Five Solas:

Sola Scriptura
Sola Fide
Sola Gratia
Solo Christo
Soli Deo Gloria.

Also, adherence to other doctrines espoused by the Reformers (including Arminius and his followers) should be what defines the Reformed Church, not Calvinism. This is not to say Calvinists could not consider themselves the true heirs of the Reformers, but they should not claim to be the only heirs.

1. Actually, embracing the Five Sola's makes one a PROTESTANT, not Reformed. Luther embrace those things at least as firmly as Calvin did (and earlier, too, lol).

2. While Arminius WAS Calvinist/Reformed, IMHO, his eventual views make him NOT "Reformed." He's still a Protestant in that he still embraces the Five Solas, but some of his views are very much at varience if not conflict with Reformed theology.


That's MY perspective.....


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[nate895]

hate to break it to ya, but that's the definition of 'Reformed'.

It's synonymous with 'Calvinist'.

That's just the way everyone uses the term 'reformed'. You're not going to be able to change that....

The thing is, if Calvinism wasn't defined by its soteriology, I would readily call myself a Calvinist with a caveat that I disagreed with his soteriology. I agree with his theology on almost every other point (as did Arminius and his followers). I don't understand why Calvinism is defined by the soteriology at all because it was really Augustine that came up with that system.

1. Actually, embracing the Five Sola's makes one a PROTESTANT, not Reformed. Luther embrace those things at least as firmly as Calvin did (and earlier, too, lol).

2. While Arminius WAS Calvinist/Reformed, IMHO, his eventual views make him NOT "Reformed." He's still a Protestant in that he still embraces the Five Solas, but some of his views are very much at varience if not conflict with Reformed theology.


That's MY perspective.....


Pax


- Josiah




.

1. That is why I included agreement on other theological issues. I am closer to Calvin on other theological issues besides soteriology than many who would call themselves "Calvinist" and "Reformed."

2. No, Arminius and the Remonstrants always defined themselves as "Reformed" and Arminius agreed with Calvin on the other issues that make up theology. When there are hundreds of points of theology, and you disagree with three and doubt a fourth, why should that automatically kick you out of the "Reformed" tent. There are those who call themselves "Reformed" when they disagree on more than a dozen points with Calvin and the other early Reformers, why shouldn't they be kicked out too?

 

[itisdeliciouscake]

you're fighting a losing battle if you honestly intend to change the way that everybody uses the terms 'calvinist' and 'reformed'.

 

[nate895]

you're fighting a losing battle if you honestly intend to change the way that everybody uses the terms 'calvinist' and 'reformed'.

I am not debating the word "Calvinist," I understand that is a lost cause as he is defined by his soteriology. However, the "Reformed" church is about, as the subheading of this sub-forum is "semper reformada" or "always reforming." The issue of soteriology isn't essential to the faith unless if one denies total deparavity. Why can't the "Reformed" church reform the definition of who are member so as to include those of us who don't agree with Calvin on soteriology, but do on the vast number of other issues?

 

[Missionary Joshua]

It is entirely possible to be a "Calvinist" and not be Reformed... Just look at John MacArthur. He is a Dispensational Calvinist...

 

[Glorthac]

I could care less what definition you place on reformed, Arminianism is still false.

 

[Missionary Joshua]

I could care less what definition you place on reformed, Arminianism is still false.

Don't breach our peace agreement... The war was long and many men lost their lives... We don't want a repeat...

oh, or are you not talking to me?

 

[nate895]

It is entirely possible to be a "Calvinist" and not be Reformed... Just look at John MacArthur. He is a Dispensational Calvinist...

I know, and I am a Covenantal Arminian (as Arminius was). If it wasn't for the fact I subscribe to the Five Articles of Remonstrance and I don't believe in burning witches and using the government (which should still be under God's Kingdom) for other such moral issues, my theology is borderline Puritanical. All of my favorite theologians are Calvinist with the exception of Arminius. Arminianism set out to moderate Calvinism and predestination, and despite all of the arguments of Calvinists, I just don't see it in the Bible, whereas I do see Arminianism.

I could care less what definition you place on reformed, Arminianism is still false.

I don't understand how you reconcile I John 2:2, II Peter 3:9, I Tim. 2:3-6, Romans 11:32, and on and on with Calvinism. The most I could ever possibly become is a four point Calvinist, and five-point Calvinists rightfully point out that four-pointers are philosophically inconsistent. Moreover, I don't see how Arminianism in anyway credits the sinner for salvation or denies God's sovereignty. I just don't believe He uses that sovereignty to determine, based on nothing but His Will, who is going to Heaven or Hell.

 

[Missionary Joshua]

I know, and I am a Covenantal Arminian (as Arminius was). If it wasn't for the fact I subscribe to the Five Articles of Remonstrance and I don't believe in burning witches and using the government (which should still be under God's Kingdom) for other such moral issues, my theology is borderline Puritanical. All of my favorite theologians are Calvinist with the exception of Arminius. Arminianism set out to moderate Calvinism and predestination, and despite all of the arguments of Calvinists, I just don't see it in the Bible, whereas I do see Arminianism.

Hey a fellow Constitution Party member... That is awesome!

 

[nate895]

Hey, I just found on the member list of the "World Alliance of Reformed Churches" the "Remonstrant Brotherhood" of the Netherlands, which is none other than the church that was founded in response to the Synod of Dort. I have heard that since then they fell into liberalism.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Hey, I just found on the member list of the "World Alliance of Reformed Churches" the "Remonstrant Brotherhood" of the Netherlands, which is none other than the church that was founded in response to the Synod of Dort. I have heard that since then they fell into liberalism.

the Remontrant Brotherhood?
I don't know if I should laugh or cry. Sounds like they can be profiled on the History Channel show "Gangland".

 

[heymikey80]

While Arminius WAS Calvinist/Reformed, IMHO, his eventual views make him NOT "Reformed." He's still a Protestant in that he still embraces the Five Solas, but some of his views are very much at varience if not conflict with Reformed theology.

Yes. Arminius' heritage was Calvinistic/Reformed. But Arminius flatly and explicitly rejected at least four positions at the core of Reformed theology -- at Soteriology.

His position was rejected by council with quite an international group of attendees. An understanding of the extent to which his view was examined and the extent of its rejection would be informative.

Arminius was not Reformed. Dordt determined that rather clearly. The council looked clearly at the Five Points of the Remonstrance and rejected them with standing, clear Scriptural reasons.

And generally Calvin was affirmed by this action. He had opposed similar things in the Institutes, which he connected with medieval error. Many people who like current Reformed teachers haven't read Eternal Predestination or Hidden Sovereignty, and sometimes haven't read Calvin's exposition of human will in the Institutes. If we're going to grapple with Arminians "liking Calvinists" we have to point out on what basis they like such theologians. Maybe the theology simply anchors Calvinists at positions that some Arminians like, over against what holds Arminian theologians to where they're at. There may be reasons why Calvinism holds at those anchor points, and Arminianism doesn't.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

The premise of this thread makes me giggle.

 

[nate895]

Yes. Arminius' heritage was Calvinistic/Reformed. But Arminius flatly and explicitly rejected at least four positions at the core of Reformed theology -- at Soteriology.

His position was rejected by council with quite an international group of attendees. An understanding of the extent to which his view was examined and the extent of its rejection would be informative.

Arminius was not Reformed. Dordt determined that rather clearly. The council looked clearly at the Five Points of the Remonstrance and rejected them with standing, clear Scriptural reasons.

And generally Calvin was affirmed by this action. He had opposed similar things in the Institutes, which he connected with medieval error. Many people who like current Reformed teachers haven't read Eternal Predestination or Hidden Sovereignty, and sometimes haven't read Calvin's exposition of human will in the Institutes. If we're going to grapple with Arminians "liking Calvinists" we have to point out on what basis they like such theologians. Maybe the theology simply anchors Calvinists at positions that some Arminians like, over against what holds Arminian theologians to where they're at. There may be reasons why Calvinism holds at those anchor points, and Arminianism doesn't.

You can't claim to be "Reformed" and "Always Reforming" if you don't accept the fact that different people can claim the title. Covenant Arminians agree with the great Reformed theologians on all points except soteriology. There are many who call themselves "Reformed" who would disagree with Calvin on every point but soteriology. Why can't it be the other way around?

We affirmed the basic premise of Reformed theology: Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone. We also agree with divine sovereignty, just not the implications of hard determinism among Calvinists, because we can't help but think that God is the author of sin in that case. That is why we are Arminians, not because of any glorification of man or making God more loving by sending resistible grace to all, it is because we can't see how hard determinism leads to anything but that without complicated doublethink or lack of thought about the subject.

Furthermore, we don't see Calvinism in the Bible. There is no limited atonement in the Bible (on the contrary, he died for the whole world, cosmos in the Greek). It does not say in the Bible that God has elected individuals to salvation. It does not say that God extends irrestible grace to the elect, and the Bible strongly implies in Jude and other places that apostasy is possible. Our beliefs are based upon the Bible, Sola Scriptura, and so therefore I don't see why Calvinists can't say that we affirm all the premises of Reformed theology, we just disagree with the conclusion in soteriology. I am talking about real Arminians, not the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, or the dispensationalist "Arminians" who sometimes believe in salvation by works.

 

[heymikey80]

You can't claim to be "Reformed" and "Always Reforming" if you don't accept the fact that different people can claim the title. Covenant Arminians agree with the great Reformed theologians on all points except soteriology. There are many who call themselves "Reformed" who would disagree with Calvin on every point but soteriology. Why can't it be the other way around?

Soteriology is more important than sacramentology or ecclesiology. Even Calvin pointed that out. His answer to Phigius wasn't cordial or pleasant.

We affirmed the basic premise of Reformed theology: Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone.

That's the basic slogans of the Protestant Reformation. Well, at least four of five. Again, that makes Arminianism Protestant. It doesn't make it Calvinistic at all, as any Lutheran could tell you.

We also agree with divine sovereignty, just not the implications of hard determinism among Calvinists, because we can't help but think that God is the author of sin in that case.

"Every chemist is a bomber."

That is why we are Arminians, not because of any glorification of man or making God more loving by sending resistible grace to all, it is because we can't see how hard determinism leads to anything but that without complicated doublethink or lack of thought about the subject.

I've found plenty of trouble philosophically on both sides, and Arminianism doesn't resolve the trouble. How God might provide for evil to exist, knowing that it would and certainly predicting that it would from the world's foundation, that's the Theodicy both views must handle, and both views try to deal with. Neither view gets beyond God's ultimate responsibility because of this consideration:

God had no need to create.
God knew what He intended to create would sin.
God therefore could have avoided causing sin by not creating.
​

Furthermore, we don't see Calvinism in the Bible. There is no limited atonement in the Bible (on the contrary, he died for the whole world, cosmos in the Greek).

There's plenty of limited atonement in the Bible. It's downright obvious that Christ did not atone for everyone's sins. Because if He did, then everyone is reconciled to God; so God will punish no one; and so everyone is saved.

Christ died to actually save only some people; Arminians and Calvinists generally agree on that though. Christ died to extend an offer of salvation to people. Arminians and Calvinists generally agree on that though.

Both views agree on whether atonement is limited. The views differ on how atonement is applied. One says it's not out of human will or action. The other doesn't. And on that difference, there is clear support in the Bible for Calvinism.

It does not say in the Bible that God has elected individuals to salvation.

Actually, it says God has chosen people, Romans 9:1-19, and that God chooses individuals not on the basis of works or will. Romans 9:19-24. And of course, "Many are called, but few are chosen."

It does not say that God extends irrestible grace to the elect,

It does say it alot, once you hash our what that category is in Scripture -- it's New Creation.

If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom 8:11,38-39
​

and the Bible strongly implies in Jude and other places that apostasy is possible.

Well you know as well as I do that Arminius didn't pass verdict on this point. The implications are that covenant is possible without the person being chosen. "Many are called, but few are chosen."

Our beliefs are based upon the Bible, Sola Scriptura, and so therefore I don't see why Calvinists can't say that we affirm all the premises of Reformed theology, we just disagree with the conclusion in soteriology. I am talking about real Arminians, not the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, or the dispensationalist "Arminians" who sometimes believe in salvation by works.

Because the five solas aren't the premises of Reformed theology. They're the slogans of Protestantism. And the views of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, his mentors and their churches wouldn't accept the Arminian viewpoint, so they're not a part of the magisterial Reformation -- thus they're not Reformed (with due accession to the fact that Lutherans separated from us, though not we from them).

 

[nate895]

Soteriology is more important than sacramentology or ecclesiology. Even Calvin pointed that out. His answer to Phigius wasn't cordial or pleasant.

I agree that is one of the most important points in theology, but nowhere near as important as the basics of the five solas (which I understand is the premise of all Protestantism, but it is also Reformed). As for Calvin and Phigius, Phigius's theology seems Semi-Pelagian to me, which Arminius's. Like I said, Arminians agree on the fundamental problem God has to overcome to effect salvation, just not with the conclusion that therefore God must extend irrestible grace to an elect group.

That's the basic slogans of the Protestant Reformation. Well, at least four of five. Again, that makes Arminianism Protestant. It doesn't make it Calvinistic at all, as any Lutheran could tell you.

True, but it is one point that we agree on. Also, many Lutheran theologians consider every movement separated from the Lutheran church as "Reformed." Which makes sense because all the other movements in Protestantism originated from a Reformed theology and not with Lutheran theology. Arminius himself was a minister in the Dutch Reformed Church, which at the time allowed dissent on certain points of doctrine. It was only after his death did his followers found the Remonstrant Reformed Brotherhood, which is still considered Reformed by many.

I've found plenty of trouble philosophically on both sides, and Arminianism doesn't resolve the trouble. How God might provide for evil to exist, knowing that it would and certainly predicting that it would from the world's foundation, that's the Theodicy both views must handle, and both views try to deal with. Neither view gets beyond God's ultimate responsibility because of this consideration:

God had no need to create.
God knew what He intended to create would sin.
God therefore could have avoided causing sin by not creating.

God determined to allow evil because otherwise we would not exist, and God is infintely loving and Holy, and therefore chose to give a route to salvation rather than choose the option that was perfectly acceptable to simply be done with us after we sinned. Remember, "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." Romans 8:28

There's plenty of limited atonement in the Bible. It's downright obvious that Christ did not atone for everyone's sins. Because if He did, then everyone is reconciled to God; so God will punish no one; and so everyone is saved.

Christ died to actually save only some people; Arminians and Calvinists generally agree on that though. Christ died to extend an offer of salvation to people. Arminians and Calvinists generally agree on that though.

Both views agree on whether atonement is limited. The views differ on how atonement is applied. One says it's not out of human will or action. The other doesn't. And on that difference, there is clear support in the Bible for Calvinism.

2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

I John 2:2

I don't see how the Calvinist gets out of this, except for the inconsisent four point Calvinist. Christ died for the sins of the whole world, provided they uphold the covenant of grace and believe He is their savior.

Actually, it says God has chosen people, Romans 9:1-19, and that God chooses individuals not on the basis of works or will. Romans 9:19-24. And of course, "Many are called, but few are chosen."

In order to understand Romans 9, you need to look up the passages from where they came. I saw an excellent exegesis on Romans 9, whereas Calvinist eisegete the passage to uphold their view with little regard to the OT references. As for "Many are called, but few are chosen," exactly the Arminian Point-of-View. God has called all (AKA, the many in the Bible), but yet has chosen only those accepted the call.

It does say it alot, once you hash our what that category is in Scripture -- it's New Creation.

If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom 8:11,38-39​

Paul is talking to, and about, those who have already accepted the calling from God. He is not saying that God irrestibly chose non-believers to become believers.

Well you know as well as I do that Arminius didn't pass verdict on this point. The implications are that covenant is possible without the person being chosen. "Many are called, but few are chosen."

I know very well. The Remonstrants later did accept that idea. I am not tied to one man's theology, I just find Arminius's the closest to my own soteriologically. My personal belief is that it if you stay in touch with your faith and in "constant prayer" as the Bible says, you won't fall. However, if you start to focus your life on other areas, you might just "shipwreck" your faith. Also, if "Many are called, but few are chosen," and you are arguing that the covenant is possible without being chosen (and I agree), how can you argue that God does not call all to the faith? Also, how can you argue that total depravity prevents God from using resistible grace? Obviously, some people's depravity has been quelled without it, only for them to start rebelling against God again.

Because the five solas aren't the premises of Reformed theology. They're the slogans of Protestantism. And the views of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, his mentors and their churches wouldn't accept the Arminian viewpoint, so they're not a part of the magisterial Reformation -- thus they're not Reformed (with due accession to the fact that Lutherans separated from us, though not we from them).

Lutherans, as I have stated earlier, believe that everyone else has broken from them and that the rest of the Protestants (including Arminians) are a part of the "Reformed" tradition.

 

[heymikey80]

I agree that is one of the most important points in theology, but nowhere near as important as the basics of the five solas (which I understand is the premise of all Protestantism, but it is also Reformed). As for Calvin and Phigius, Phigius's theology seems Semi-Pelagian to me, which Arminius's. Like I said, Arminians agree on the fundamental problem God has to overcome to effect salvation, just not with the conclusion that therefore God must extend irrestible grace to an elect group.

Extending universal grace which restored choice is Phigius' point -- right? So what's different about Arminius that would lead you to a difference with what Calvin actually responded to Phigius, as different from Arminius?

True, but it is one point that we agree on. Also, many Lutheran theologians consider every movement separated from the Lutheran church as "Reformed." Which makes sense because all the other movements in Protestantism originated from a Reformed theology and not with Lutheran theology. Arminius himself was a minister in the Dutch Reformed Church, which at the time allowed dissent on certain points of doctrine. It was only after his death did his followers found the Remonstrant Reformed Brotherhood, which is still considered Reformed by many.

The problem, of course, is that "the Reformed Churches" identified themselves in this way in rejection of the errors of Arminians. They identified the opposition as a tip away from the reform of the church toward the Scriptures. Hence not reforming in the direction the word is meant.

God determined to allow evil because otherwise we would not exist, and God is infintely loving and Holy, and therefore chose to give a route to salvation rather than choose the option that was perfectly acceptable to simply be done with us after we sinned. Remember, "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." Romans 8:28

Again, it doesn't get past a way which omits evil. If evil is inherently and completely evil, then not creating would have stopped the whole thing.

Evil is not what we think it is.

I John 2:2

I don't see how the Calvinist gets out of this, except for the inconsisent four point Calvinist. Christ died for the sins of the whole world, provided they uphold the covenant of grace and believe He is their savior.

I've seen two, both pretty reasonable.

The first is that the world as a whole is not each person individually. Jesus redeems the whole of creation.

The second is that the context of 1 John 2:2 is specifically directed at Christians -- Christians in one church, in fact -- and Christians across the whole world, not simply the people John is talking to, receive salvation through their "Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" 2:1.

If this were meant toward those who reject Christ, John's slammed quite a universal dunk for Christ's advocacy of those who reject Him -- ie, universalism. But it's not true for either view. So the verse itself has been sliced away from its own context so neatly as to present less than the truth.

In order to understand Romans 9, you need to look up the passages from where they came. I saw an excellent exegesis on Romans 9, whereas Calvinist eisegete the passage to uphold their view with little regard to the OT references.

Pray. Tell.

As for "Many are called, but few are chosen," exactly the Arminian Point-of-View. God has called all (AKA, the many in the Bible), but yet has chosen only those accepted the call.

God has chosen, not of will or work. Romans 9?

Paul is talking to, and about, those who have already accepted the calling from God. He is not saying that God irrestibly chose non-believers to become believers.

"Those He predestined, He called. Those He called, He justified."

I know very well. The Remonstrants later did accept that idea. I am not tied to one man's theology, I just find Arminius's the closest to my own soteriologically. My personal belief is that it if you stay in touch with your faith and in "constant prayer" as the Bible says, you won't fall. However, if you start to focus your life on other areas, you might just "shipwreck" your faith.

So no reason for Paul to tell us that no one can condemn us, that our continued life couldn't separate us from the love of God found in Christ Jesus our Lord. Apparently such things can separate us.

Also, if "Many are called, but few are chosen," and you are arguing that the covenant is possible without being chosen (and I agree), how can you argue that God does not call all to the faith?

I don't.

Also, how can you argue that total depravity prevents God from using resistible grace?

I don't. God favors people who resist that favor, and resist ultimately. This mistake in my position is normally due to a mistake about the source of reprobation. It may be worth reading Dordt to confirm the difference between the source of election and reprobation, before making 400-year-old allegations that have proved false.

Obviously, some people's depravity has been quelled without it, only for them to start rebelling against God again.

Yep.

 

[nate895]

Extending universal grace which restored choice is Phigius' point -- right? So what's different about Arminius that would lead you to a difference with what Calvin actually responded to Phigius, as different from Arminius?

I must say I don't know much about Pighius. I only looked him up rather quickly, and the Catholic Encyclopedia said that he only thought that "original sin was the sin of Adam put onto each child at birth." That sounds Semi-Pelagian (where people are "soul-sick," but can still come to God). However, I must admit ignorance as to the details. I must say that his views on original sin are certainly different than Arminius's or my own.

The problem, of course, is that "the Reformed Churches" identified themselves in this way in rejection of the errors of Arminians. They identified the opposition as a tip away from the reform of the church toward the Scriptures. Hence not reforming in the direction the word is meant.

I maintain that Arminianism (in its original sense) was a reform more towards scripture, better harmonizing scripture than Calvinism.

Again, it doesn't get past a way which omits evil. If evil is inherently and completely evil, then not creating would have stopped the whole thing.

Evil is not what we think it is.

Christ says in John 8:44 that Satan is a "murderer" and "father of lies." I therefore conclude that Satan is the source of all evil, and that is why in the end evil will be triumphed over because it is inherently inferior to good, being not created by God.

I've seen two, both pretty reasonable.

The first is that the world as a whole is not each person individually. Jesus redeems the whole of creation.

The second is that the context of 1 John 2:2 is specifically directed at Christians -- Christians in one church, in fact -- and Christians across the whole world, not simply the people John is talking to, receive salvation through their "Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" 2:1.

If this were meant toward those who reject Christ, John's slammed quite a universal dunk for Christ's advocacy of those who reject Him -- ie, universalism. But it's not true for either view. So the verse itself has been sliced away from its own context so neatly as to present less than the truth.

I John 2:2 says "And he is the propitation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Unless if you are concluding that creation sins in some manner, then it must mean that Christ died for the sins of the whole world as in people. Furthermore, the word in the Greek "Kosmos," means (according to Strong's) "...orderly arrangement. i.e. decoration, by impl. the world (in a wide or narrow sense, incl. its inhab.,
lit. or fig. [mor.])-adorning, world."

In context, the verse seems to have the same implications of the whole people.

Pray. Tell.

God has chosen, not of will or work. Romans 9?

Romans 9 is talking about the national election of physical Israel for the purposes of delivering the Messiah. Many in the Early Church wondered why Israel was chosen for this duty when they ultimately rejected the Messiah, and Paul is telling them that it was done in God's infinite wisdom, and who are we to question it.

"Those He predestined, He called. Those He called, He justified."

Now you're taking verses out of context.

29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

God foreknew people, and then predestinated them to be "conformed to the image of his Son..." Exactly what Arminians believe. God predestined those He foreknew to be believers to be saved. He called them along with the rest of the world, and they responded unlike the rest.

So no reason for Paul to tell us that no one can condemn us, that our continued life couldn't separate us from the love of God found in Christ Jesus our Lord. Apparently such things can separate us.

Paul also talks about glorifying God in our everyday activities. What I am talking about is making sure to remember on a regular basis that whatever you have is from God, and that no matter what your position in society is, you are doing it for the Glory of God.

I don't.

But five-point Calvinists, as you portray yourself to be, believe one of the two following systems (from Spurgeon.org):

Supralapsarianism (High Calvinism)

1. [FONT=Arial,Helvetica][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
   [*]Elect some, reprobate rest
   [*]Create
   [*]Permit Fall
   [*]Provide salvation for elect
   [*]Call elect to salvation[/FONT]

Infralapsarianism

1. [FONT=Arial,Helvetica][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
   [*]Create
   [*]Permit Fall
   [*]Elect some, pass over the rest
   [*]Provide salvation for elect
   [*]Call elect to salvation[/FONT]

The call is for the elect in Calvinism, because the atonement is limited. If God only provided an atonement sufficient for the elect (as you maintain), the call to the non-elect is worthless. If you are a four-point Calvinist, you can maintain that the call is for all, but only the elect will respond, but four-point Calvinism is difficult to defend philosophically and theologically because it is a compromise between two systems. Calvinism is a system of interpreting scripture, and so is Arminianism. I just think Arminianism is more consistent and requires less explanations in scripture than Calvinism.

BTW, here is a decent summary of Arminian view of the decrees (but not perfect) from the same site:

1. [FONT=Arial,Helvetica][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
   [*]Create
   [*]Permit Fall
   [*]Provide salvation for all
   [*]Call all to salvation
   [*]Elect those who believe[/FONT]

I don't. God favors people who resist that favor, and resist ultimately. This mistake in my position is normally due to a mistake about the source of reprobation. It may be worth reading Dordt to confirm the difference between the source of election and reprobation, before making 400-year-old allegations that have proved false.

The Synods of Dort says disbelief is in man (as I would affirm), and that it is his fault alone. Yet, in the very next article it states that whether you have belief or not is through the eternal decree of God. It can't be both. In my view, God has given all the grace needed for salvation (Titus 2:11). It is only through acceptance of this grace that you can be saved.

I have heard a Calvinist interpretation saying that the "all" refers all different types of people, and I maintain that you can see that if you are a Calvinist first and then read the passage.