Arminian or Calvinistic?

Jude - it was not Christ's apearance that saved Paul. "Both trembling and being astonished he said, Lord, what do You desire me to do?" Acts 9:6a This verse shows that Paul is wiling to obey Christ. This is what saved him. This verse does not say that God forced him to be willing, or that he chose to do so, I personaly feel that he chose. In short this scrispture neither supports nor denies the docterine of calvinism. What this conversion does teach us is that some times, in order to make sure that a person seeks him, God will make simself known to that person physicaly or in a vision. Why does God do this for some people and not others? The only answer I can give is that what ever God's reason is, it is in the best interest of God's glory and the furtherance of the church.

 

Q1: I voted neither, but would be just on the Arminian side of that. Over the last few years I have been moving from "Fairly Arminian" to...well..."Fairly-Strongly Calvinistic" or who knows what From memory this move was how I surfed across the Baptist Board. While I haven't posted much here in the C/A forum, I have been lurking and reading you all

So I guess all that means I answered no to Q2...which has me thinking on who has moved where. Might make a poll on that topic.

 

Yes. </font>[/QUOTE]So Why should it matter if a person is a Calvinist or an Armenian? </font>[/QUOTE]It don't to me. I just discuss to change my mind, or somebody's. To learn, or unlearn. It's just a point of theology, I guess.

 

Yes. </font>[/QUOTE]So Why should it matter if a person is a Calvinist or an Armenian? </font>[/QUOTE]It don't to me. I just discuss to change my mind, or somebody's. To learn, or unlearn. It's just a point of theology, I guess. </font>[/QUOTE]Many Christians divide over this issue and It is not worth dividing over. If we have to be divided ( even though Jesus prayed Father make them one) at least divide over something worthwhile.

 

One thing I've learned: never bring a preconcieved system of theology to the Bible!
There is much to be said for both sides of the case.

 

Assuming Paul would have remained unsaved if it Jesus hadn't done what He did: If God is not willing that any (anyone who ever lived, lives, or will live) perish, and God is willing to override the will and disposition of Paul with a miraculous event, then why isn't God willing to do the same for everyone?

Obviously, one of the above assumptions must not be true -- either Paul would have been saved anyway and the Damascus experience was only expedient, not necessary. Or God is perfectly willing for some to perish and "all" does not refer to "everyone who lived, lives or will live".

 

Originally posted by Michael52:

I totally agree with this statement.

I have friends who are Calvinists and some who are not, and a few declared Arminians. I think the thing that bugs me the most about some Calvinists (not all!) is that they declare you an Arminian if you are not a Calvinist. I have debated this with my Calvinist/Reformed friends. I am not Calvinist but I am not Arminian as I don't believe you can lose your salvation.

I lean probably just a little toward a moderate Calvinist view but not enough to vote that way. Of course, Calvinists would say you can't be slightly or moderately Calvinist.

I voted Neither but could have voted Both as well. I see both in the Bible. As someone once told me, as you enter heaven, you see a sign saying "All who will enter here" and on the other side it says, "God chose you."

 

Many times we Calvinists do define anyone who is not a Calvinist as Arminian. That is a error. There are some who are 4.5 point "Calvinists" better known as Amyrault Calvinists and Lutherans have much in common with Calvinists. Both Amyraults and Lutherans deny Free Will like Calvinists. It is correct to say many Baptists show a heavy influence of Arminian beliefs but also borrow from the Calvinist view of Perseverance of Saints and rename it "Once Saved Always Saved".

On the other hand Non Calvinists many times denomize Calvinists as not believing in "Whosoever will may come", or not believing in Evangelism, of teaching fatalism. If you are going to criticize Calvinists please read what Calvinists believe (Read Spurgeon, Edwards, Berkoff, Canons of Dort etc..)

 

There's a Arminian website (I forget where) that actually said that Calvinism was more defensible than the 'something in between' position. I guess they just think it more 'manly' to pick an extreme. They were really down on what they called the 'Baptist' position. I read the Baptist position and I thought it made good sense (I'm Baptist, go figure). The best I recall, the Baptist position was a 3 point Calvinist position. That is:
Un-Limited atonement
Resistible Grace
I've read some of the champions of both sides (ie Spurgeon, Edwards, Clarke, Wesley, etc.). To me, they agree more than they differ. Maybe I'm just not discerning enough to be able to boil down those voluminous writtings to 5 sound-bites...er...truths. -Enough rambling

 

Kiffin,

Rather than use specific terms such as Calvinist or Arminian, I prefer to use the general terms: monergist and synergist.

In the monergist column are pure Calvinists, Lutherans.
In the synergist column are the Arminians, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox.
Some denominations are a mix of both: Anglican, Baptist, etc.

I'm not sure the Amyraldists fall into the monergist category. According to Bucks's Theological Dictionary, there seems to be some level of cooperation (free will).

AMYRALDISM
A name given by some writers to the doctrine of universal grace, as explained and asserted by Amyraldus or Moses. Amyrault, and others, his followers, among the reformed in France, towards the middle of the seventeenth century. This doctrine principally consisted of the following particulars, viz. that God desires the happiness of all men, and none are excluded by a divine decree; that none can obtain salvation without faith in Christ; that God refuses to none the power of believing, though he does not grant to all his assistance that they may improve this power to saving purposes; and that they may perish through their own fault. Those who embraced this doctrine were called Universalists; though it is evident they rendered grace universal in words, but partial in reality.

[ June 04, 2004, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

Arminians may resent being lumped in with Roman Catholics (synergists) because of their association with work righteousness. But, Catholic work righteousness is really a by-product of the Catholic doctrine of free will. In the fall, man did not lose free will but merely perfect control over concupiscence.Those who have attained the use of reason are saved only by cooperating freely with the saving grace of God.

Calvinists and Lutherans may also resent being lumped together. They abhor each other's doctrine of predestination. However, both deny free will and are true monergists.

 

Isn't it true that some Calvinists believe that you can be regenerated but not one of the elect?

Also, I have read that according to one interpretation of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, you can think you are one of the elect, but if you die in sin, it might mean you are not. So you cannot be sure you are saved.

Is anyone familiar with these 2 views?

 

No. I have never heard that though some hardshell hypers may teach that but Calvinism does not teach that.

I am not sure what that means. There are of course many people who think they are saved but are not. If one deserts their Profession as a Christian and dies in rebellion against Christ then one must assume they were never a believer. Perseverance of the saints simply means that the elect will persevere in the faith to the end. As the French Huguenot Confession states We believe also that faith is not given to the elect only to introduce them into the right way, but also to make them continue in it to the end. For as it is God who has begun the work, he will also perfect it.