Calvinism/Arminianism Debate Choices

I doubt if you'll get too many responses by setting the guidelines for our answers. Why don't you just tell us what you want us to say.

 

Hi Baptistxenos;
I have been called an arminian ever since I joined this board, But the truth is I'm just a plain old bornagain Chrtistian. I keep telling them I'm neither Calvinist or Arminian. I have also been referred to as several other things. The truth is I follow Christ not some dead guy.

One does not have to be of a doctorine that came out of the Catholic church in order to be saved. Christians existed long before the RCC. Infact Baptist existed long before the RCC.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

Thank you. That does explain things a great deal more. I have been called a Calvinist simply because I believe in eternal security. I guess those that would label me as such are confusing my stand with the perseverance of the saints which the Calvinists hold to.

I have been called an Arminian because of my support of personal evangelism. (Door-to-door soulwinning, etc...)

I would consider myself neither. I am simply a Bible believer who feels confident that I can support my theology directly from the Word of God without the aid of history.

I believe very strongly that there are saved folks on both sides of the isle.

 

As a Reformed Reformed:

1. there is no test for election
2. Regeneration preceeds conversion
3. could preceed it by a long time
4. thus most anyone except Nero & Hitler types coulcd be saved.

 

BX -

It all boils down to this --

Arminians accept the obvious fact that Belief is a choice. Calvinists do not.

Arminains (and 3 point Calvinists) accept the obvious fact that "God so loved the WORLD that HE GAVE" -- whereas 4 and 5 point Calvinists do not.

Arminians and 3 and 5 point Calvinists accept the Bible truth of "perseverance of the saints" at least in some basic form. Four point Calvinists reject it.

When Calvinists are called to give an account for what they have stated - very often they flee the discussion behind some kind of ad hominem attack to misdirect away from the specific point being raised. Usually Arminians do not employ those antics.

You seem to be asking if "there is another option" in those choices. I suppose there could be -- what are you suggesting?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bill claims "Regeneration PRECEEDS conversion" -- Romans 10 says this about that --

Notice what "results in salvation"??

Have you ever seen ANY instance in the Bible where one who is "born again" is "not yet saved"?? Any case where UNION with Christ - our FIRST love - is NOT in the context of "Salvation"??

The Calvinist statement above is that BEFORE conversion TO Christ the wicked are first IN UNION WITH Christ!! (Regeneration is even by Calvinist definitions - at first UNION WITH Christ). But Romans 10 argues that BELIEF comes BEFORE salvation.

The Calvinist doctrine is then that those IN full and complete Gospel UNION WITH Christ are not yet saved!

In Christ,

Bob

 

BX -

Good points. I agree that my views don't always coincide with every other Arminian on every single point. You are also right to note that I show various places where Arminians and certain groups of Calvinists do agree in opposition to other kinds of Calvinists.

So the "neat and clean" Arminian vs Calvinist distinction may not exist on all topics depending on which kind of Calvinist one is talking to.

(ending with a preposition - I know)

But when the argument grows weak - a Calvinist will avoid the "inconvenient details" of the text "At all costs" as the thread on 'Should God have Mercy" points out with Jonah 4 and as the thread on "I stand at the door and knock" points out.

Of course to be fair - there may be other threads where Arminians do not fair well and where their argument grows thin -- they too (like all Calvinists on the other two threads) would "flee the text".

I have not seen those threads - (or maybe I am just not spending much time there) - but I would not be surprised that they might exist.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hey BaptistXenos

There are more than two choices. Calvinism is a choice that seek to honor God by way of honoring His transcendance. Unfortunately, it compromises His immanence. While Calvinism is an error, it is still clearly within the evangelical faith.

Arminianism is a choice that honors human-centered self-righteousness. It is questionable whether this is within the evangelical faith. Adherents to this heresy may be truly saved but are wrecking there life by way of rejecting Jesus Christ's finished work on the Cross.

The Free Grace position is the biblical position. It holds God's transcendance and immancence in their proper biblical "both/and" harmony and balance. The Free Grace position is closer to Calvinism.

LLoyd

 

Hey BaptistXenos

The Free Grace position is very close to the (original) Lutheran position. Check out: http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/XLVI/46-2p2.htm


I personally am a member of the Grace Evangelical Society http://www.faithalone.org/journal/ and the Free Grace Alliance: http://www.freegracealliance.org/

There are other worthy organizations that have not "tilted." Dallas Theological Seminary, the Bible Baptists, many (not all) Southern Baptists, etc.

Lloyd

 

Lloyd,

As usual, clear thinking. Have you heard of "middle knowledge?" It is championed by William Lane Craig, who is actually an Arminian (quite adriot at defending the faith - considered to be the best living apologetic, FWIW). Zane Hodges supports it also - who is the unofficial head of free grace today.

At www.faithalone.org/journal/1993ii/J11-93b.htm Zane comments briefly on it:

There is a book which I read a few months ago which considers the 4 basic views of divine foreknowledge allowing the gurus in each area to explain their case and the others to respond. (Open theism, simple foreknowledge, middle knowledge and the reformed view.)

Anyway, I like the MK approach because it allows us to lift up the election of God while holding onto the free agency of man. It's actually been around for some time - a Catholic debate on the issue spawned it.

FA

 

Hey FA

Middle knowledge to me was develop by some Catholic theologian. In a nutshell, our every decision is associated with a different reality. God knows every possible outcome of every possible reality from every possible decision. The one that he chose maximizes His glory.

That's all I know!

The MK position does indeed sound as if it supports the harmonious balance between Free Will and God's sovereign "control" (just couldn't bring myself to type "election").

Lloyd

 

Arminianism is a choice that honors human-centered self-righteousness. It is questionable whether this is within the evangelical faith. Adherents to this heresy may be truly saved but are wrecking there life by way of rejecting Jesus Christ's finished work on the Cross.