whats your difference

Your first assumption that we are all either Arminians or Calvinist to varying degrees isn't realistic. I'm neither, nor has any part of my faith come out of the Catholic Churches teaching. Both Calvinism and Arminianism did come from Catholic doctrine. The Calvinist came out of them first and then the Arminians came out of the Calvinist.
I'm not a Universal nor Pelegan. I'm a fundamentalist. This means my doctrine comes from the Bible. Not half bible and half man or man's logical reasoning. Meaning I do not use any science to figure out what the bible is telling me. I take it literally I let scripture explain scripture. The reasoning of man has to many faults to rely on it and is often wrong.

I believe all men can come to Christ when drawn by hearing the gospel and is not disabled from doing so. I believe our election is in the act of Christ dying on the cross. In that He died for the whole world and not just a few particular people. We are all chosen for Salvation although this choosing does not mean we will be saved.
The atonement is conditional and therefore limited to only those who come to Him in humble belief. We are all drawn when we hear the gospel but, not all are willing to humbly submit.
The grace of God is resistible. He doesn't force any one to come to Him. The Jews and others have been doing it for thousands of years. Pharaoh did it as well.
There is no such thing as perseverance of the saints in scripture because everyone who accepts Christ as there Savior has been sealed. In other words we aren't saved by our righteousness and we aren't kept saved by our righteousness.
MB

 

donnA, I reason that it looks like you forgot to include the difference option that is known as the "biblical view." Methinks it will be a popular one (tongue in cheek of course).

 

Security of the Believer

DonnA writes:
"I really am interested in what the different beleifs are, and if you say people don't know what you beleive, then tell us.
Be civil, if at all possible people."

I know of at least six different beliefs in the security of the believer. All believe that God is completely sovereign. All believe that the grace God provides is more than sufficient for salvation. The differences are in man's required response to God's grace.

The folowing is a very abbreviated description of the beliefs. Obviously more can be said about each one.

1. 4/5 Point Calvinist.
- God's elects, man has no choice.

2. Eternal Security (non- 4/5 point Calvinist).
- Man must accept grace, then cannot reject grace.

3, Arminius Belief
- Man must accept grace, but can later choose to forfiet grace by not believing.

4. Wesley' Belief
- Man must: accept grace, confess and be remorseful for known sins, and not have long term unforgiveness of others.

5. Santification Belief
- Wesley' belief plus man must continue on the path to santification.

6. Roman Catholic Belief
- Accept grace by faith plus have some good works.

 

It all hinges on Total Depravity; are we dead in sin, or not?

If so, you have to be a Predestinarian, later referred to mistakenly as a Calvinist.
If you are such, to be consistent, you must be a 5 pointer. Even if you're the opposite, to be consistent, you have to be a 5 point Arminian.

The Lord is the author of sin, obviously. Sounds bad at first, but, if God is sovereign, then He is sovereign in all things.

Cheers!

PS to MB: My doctrine also comes from the Bible. This is kind of like saying,
"we believe in the whole Bible", etc. Means nothing actually.

 

I don't think the Calvinist/Arminian dichotomy is entirely valid. There are other points of view. Especially pelagianism. But we already talked about that awhile back, and it is not on your list. I think my beliefs are a tertiam quid, too.

Depravity - I believe pretty much as Calvin and Arminius.

Election - I believe pretty much like Calvin.

Free will - Yes, but within circumstances ordained by God. Not everything that happens is foreordained, but neither is our will "free." I was, by the grace of God, born in a country where Christianity is widely believed in some form. That makes it MUCH more likely that I am going to be exposed to Christianity and believe than would be the case if I was born in China, for example.

Atonement - My beliefs are in a little bit of flux here. Not totally sure what my formulation would be, but I am confident if Christ died for all sins, then everyone would be saved. Therefore I don't believe that to be the case, because the Bible states clearly some are not saved. Calvin of course believed in general atonement. And truthfully I do see some type of general atonement taught in the Bible, but not as the Arminians believe, and I don't think quite as Calvin believed, either. So I am still sorting this one out, but basically I believe in limited atonement.

Irresistible grace - Similar to Calvin, except that I do not believe in gospel regeneration. I believe that regeneration is an inward experience, and that the believer's response may be entirely inward as well. This has implications that I think would be pretty controversial for a lot of baptists, because it means that not only infants, the mentally disabled, etc., may be called, but also that people from other faiths may be called .... and saved. Maybe without ever being blessed to hear the gospel preached at all. As far as grace being "obstructible," it is in the sense that we can be stubborn and not follow Christ, but in the end we will be saved.

Perseverance - Hmm, I think that people may cease to follow Christ and still be saved. Would they necessarily be drawn back at some point later in their lives? I don't know. I think Calvin, on the other hand, thought that the elect would not fall away from their walk with Christ, so if a believer abandoned their walk that would mean that they were never truly elect to begin with. Not totally sure of that because I have never read anything by Calvin on this subject. So I formulate my beliefs as "preservation."

 

figuratively yes but not literaly.

I disagree; I believe in predestination though it isn't anything like what Calvinist or Arminians have described.
Predestination doesn't occur before the foundation of the world but, after Salvation.
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

We have all been chosen IN HIM. This choosing has nothing to do with the predestination in the next verse.
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

This predestination in context comes after our being holy and without blame before him in love not before.

You're right it does sound bad and thats because it is. Sin is a by product of the Law. Byproducts are not authored but are the Laws consequence. They are produced as the result of something else. IOW's you can't have one with out the other.

Actually it means truth according to the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Calvinist believe that before Salvation we are unable to respond to the gospel. Spiritual death is a conscious death in which we can respond to the gospel. If death means inability then why aren't we unable to sin after Salvation when we become alive to Christ and dead to sin? The answer is we were never disabled to begin with and there isn't one scripture that says we are disabled. Calvinist want to describe spiritual death as if it is like physical death when the two are not a like at all. So if you're a Calvinist then this disablement you claim is not scriptural.
MB

 

Actually I did answer your question. Your opening title was the question I answered. What's your difference? Though you didn't place a question mark at the end it is in fact a question.
You do remember what you asked don't you?
MB

 

Excellent post, MB :thumbs:

 

As illustrated by the above, separating beliefs into either Calvinism or Arminianism doesn't make much sense to me. Note that only belief #1 agrees with what Calvin believed. And only belief #3 is what arminius believed. Yet people of belief #2 consider themselves Calvinists even though they don't believe in unconditional election/irrestible grace. Why?

Only those of beliefs #1 & #2 consider the other beliefs Arminian even though Arminius believed only belief #3. Isn't it is about time those of beliefs #1 & #2 stop labelling all other beliefs Arminian?

 

Great points, drfuss :thumbs:

I also wonder why even those who only hold to 3 or fewer calvinism points are eager to call themselves calvinists (even though it is a systematic theology that stands together), but those who hold to the same number of arminian points don't want to be associated with that label? Can pride have somthing to do with it, meaning they want to be associated with the Spurgeon's, Sproul's and Piper's of the world?

 

I guess the non-Calvinists/Arminianistics are very humble in not wanting to be associated with the likes of Dave Hunt , Adrian Rogers , Norm Geisler , Ergun Caner , Charles Stanley & co.

 

You're correct. I would rather be associated with Jesus Christ. I would never want to be called an Arminian, a Stanlyan, a Geissleran, Canerian, or a Rogerian.

 

Instead of an "association" with Christ which suggests a light affiliation , I would say that His people are in saving union with Him .

 

I think you need a new dictionary. I see no "light affiliation" whatsoever...

Associate
ASSO'CIATE, v.t. assoshate. [L. associo, of ad and socio, to join.]
1. To join in company, as a friend, companion, partner or confederate; as, to associate others with us in business, or in an enterprise.
It conveys the idea of intimate union.
2. To unite in the same mass; as, particles of matte associated with other substances.
ASSO'CIATE, v.i.
1. To unite in company; to keep company, implying intimacy; as, congenial minds are disposed to associate.
2. To unite in action, or be affected by the action of a different part of the body.ASSO'CIATE, a.

That's why I prefer the label "Christian"