does arminianism lead to pragmatism?

Honestly I think it's a straw man argument.

Let's use this line of reason on the recent Chilean miners situation. The miners were trapped underground with no way to save themselves. The gov't mapped out the means of rescue, and it included a narrow hole drilled down to rescue them. Now, in order to be rescued the miners had to maintain a certain waist size in order to fit into the rescue pod. This took effort on the part of the miners to eat right, exercise and measure their waists. This effort did not mean they earned their salvation, but it was the requirement laid out to be saved. Many times we assume that any effort negates grace, and that cannot be more false. Earning negates grace, not effort.

Now, these miners were able to talk to their family's and friends. Did their families have to plead and beg them to be the size needed? If the miners did not do what was required, was the blame put on the families who talked to them, the rescuers or on the miners?

On another note, how did Paul preach the Gospel to the pagans on Mars Hill?

 

I would suggest that Arminianism, "logically" followed does indeed lead to pragmatism just like Calvinism "logically" followed leads to a deterministic God.

The question is, are either being "logically" followed or do they stop where the Scriptures stop?

In both cases we have some who stop and some who do not.

 

It can, but doesn't necessarily does. For instance, I know some calvinists who preach the Gospel out of command rather than love. I also know some arminians who think it is their personal responsibility to "win their soul". I believe both leave much to be desired.

 

We should mark this day on the calendar. For one post, we agree.

Sometimes, in our heatedness and great desire to be right, we forget that individuals hold individual interpretations of larger doctrines, and that there are great variances in those interpretations, be they Calvinist or Arminian, or otherwise.

 

Both if logically followed have non-Biblical conclusions. That doesn't make them wrong. It just makes the conclusion wrong. I think, somewhere in between, lies the right answer to both systems of belief and there I will remain. I will plead (not manipulate) with people to call on the name of the Lord. I will plead with God to save my lost neighbor whom I've shared the gospel with and yet refuses to believe. I do this because I am commanded to. I do this because I think hell is a real, horrible, and eternal place and I don't want anyone to go there. I do this because I love my neighbor. At the same time, I know that no ones comes to the Father unless they are drawn to Him and ultimately whether someone comes to know Christ lies in the sovereign work of God. There's no slipping over the fence into the fold. One must come through Christ and Christ alone.

 

Link below has a handy table of the common positions, and the ordo salutis.

Calvinist ordo salutis:

Election/Predestination (unconditional)

Regeneration

Faith

Justification

Sanctification

Glorification



Arminian ordo salutis:

Prevenient grace

Faith

[Union with Christ]

Justification

Regeneration

Sanctification

Glorification


The IFB ordo salutis
(Neither Arminian or Calvinist -- gleaned from commonly expressed points in posts on this board -- not "published" because of a general rejection of "theology"):

Outward call

Faith/election

Repentance

Regeneration

Justification

Perseverance/Sanctification (optional depending on the particular point of view or the believer)

Glorification


Roman Catholic Ordo Salutis:
(for infants the process starts with baptism)

Prevenient Grace/Calling

Disposition/Co-operation

Faith and Repentance/Penance

Baptism

Confirmation

Eucharist

Penance

Extreme Unction



Classical Arminian and Calvinist views both start with God, not man. IFB typically starts with man, not God. Catholics start with an action of man, not God (in the case of infant baptism) or with previnient grace (like Arminians) if adults have come to faith.

 

I wonder do you mean like Calvinism eventually leads back to Catholicism?
MB

 

Now that sports fans -- is the nonsense quote of the day.

 

Very interesting and helpful.

Could you also give the Hyper Calvinist ordo salutis?

I never could figure out the theological difference between Hyper Calvinists and the majority of Calvinists. Is there a difference and if so, what is it?

 

Hyper-Calvinism would be like this:

Predestination

Election/Reprobation

Regeneration for the Elect/Damnation for the reprobate

Faith

Justification

Sanctification

Glorification

The primary difference is one of action rather than God's order of salvation, though the hyper-Calvinist would have a category for the reprobate a "double" predestination, so to speak. Hyper-Calvinists generally take it upon themselves to decide whom are the elect, thinking (wrongly) that they can discern that here on earth, and in so doing, strive to preach, minister, love, fellowship, etc., only with the elect of God instead of all the people the Scriptures command, i.e., "all people". In that sense, they are heretical as much as the Pelagian, for both are "playing" God in that they decide who is saved or who is not saved based on their own interpretations, actions, and beliefs.

 

Thank you very much.

 

Hyper-Calvinism generally holds that God will save the elect, come what may, and it may be independently of the gospel. In other words, God will save the elect whether they ever hear the gospel or not.

 

According to this belief, there really is no purpose for the gospel even though the bible says it is the power of God unto salvation.

 

Nodak...

No its not. Ultimetly it is the testimony of the Holy Spirit that counts. We may witness imperfectly, but the Holy Spirit is their with us witnessing.

He wittnesses perfectly.

My goodness, no. The Holy Spirit is the agent of conversion.

It is a mistake to think of it that way.

God does the convicting and God does the saving. HE wants us to share truth with people as He opens the door of opportunity.

That is where it ends regarding us.

Only the "stirring of the lost" involves us. We have no part in the "winning the lost" part.

AiC