Can Armenian Calvinists Co-Exist?

I wonder [out loud] if there is such an animal as an Armenian/
Calvinist in this world of "mixed" every things. That would make an interesting combination come Sunday morning preaching. :godisgood:

Can we have a civil conversation about this topic? I'd hope so, because I'd love some real feedback as to this possibility...

 

I'm sure there are Calvinists who are from Armenia.:smilewinkgrin:

Seriously, I think that would be an aberration. There is no way to reconcile the two. In fact, the TULIP or its principles were developed in response to the statements made by the remonstrants (?) which basically stood in direct contrast to the principles laid out by the Arminians, if I got it right from what I've read on this board.

But what does this brownie know, eh ?
Let's hear it from the Calvinists and the Arminians.

 

I asked this question once before. The answer was a resounding NO!!!!

So I gave it up and accepted the title of freewiller. :D

 

"Have you never seen the hard work that some brethren have to shape a Scripture to their mind ? One text is not Calvinistic, it looks rather like Arminianism : of course it cannot be so, and therefore they twist and tug to get it right. As for our Arminian brethren, it is wonderful to see how they hammer away at the ninth of Romans: steam-hammers and screw-jacks are nothing to their appliances for getting rid of election from that chapter. We have all been guilty of racking Scripture more or less, and it will be well to have done with the evil for ever. We had better far be inconsistent with ourselves than with the inspired word. I have been called an Arminian Calvinist or a Calvinistic Arminian, and I am quite content so long as I can keep close to my Bible. I desire to preach what I find in this Book, whether I find it in anybody else's book or not." --Charles Spurgeon

 

What do you mean can they? They both exist now.

 

Can Armenian and Calvinists Co-Exist?

Yes, if they choose too. :smilewinkgrin:

Rob

 

Or if they're predestined to. :laugh:

 

One cannot believe both monergism and synergism at the same time.
You must believe either one or the other.
To believe that God has predestined those who will be saved before the foundation of the world and to believe that it is also man who is the deciding factor is totally inconsistent.

One can believe that God has chosen based on mans choice but that is a different animal that GOd choosing before we are born, before we have done any good or bad that the purpose of election might stand.

 

Of course you are right Dale.

I wonder if you have ever noticed this. Those that call for "union" is always a non-Calvinist. Have you ever seen a Calvinist call for compromise? I have not.

Most of the time when compromise is called for, I follow with something like this.

Can we have a non-calvinist agree? :) Come now...Who will be the 1st non-Calvinist to agree?


I'll check back in 10 years. Maybe it will happen. :)

 

I agree with you. I find scripture supporting both points of view. I used to be strongly anti-Calvinist but now believe that since both are supported in the Bible I need to accept both. I believe that this is a matter that maybe only God can make sence out of and I strongly believe that it should not keep Christians apart. I do still get upset with very dogmatic positions on either side. These seem to come mostly from the Calvinists but maybe I'm still a bit biased.

 

BB, perhaps you missed this post by Dale-c. Both beliefs can not be in Scripture, the Bible does not contradict itself.

 

What do you do with SBC?? It was formed by mostly Calvinists and non-Cals alike over a century and half ago.

 

William B. Johnson (1782-1862) was the first president when the SBC began in 1845.

Some other leaders of that era : P.H.Mell (1814-1888)
John Dagg ( 1794-1884)
John Broadus ( 1827-1895 )
James P. Boyce ( 1827-1888 )
Basil Manly 1798-1868 )

All six of these most prominent individuals were Calvinists to a man.

 

Not sure what your getting at??

As I said these Calvinists worked side-by-side with Non-Cals and in the formation of an association of churches known as the SBC.

For some to say they can't co-exisit much less endevor in the work of the Lord together don't have their history nor theology straight. (this does not mention those individuals who worked with Non-cals and vise-versa -- example - Spurgeon and Moody.. and so on.

 

It was primarily Calvinistic, who denied this? However even you acknowledge it is 'primarily' and not 'only' Calvinists. Thus they did work together with non-Cals and joined together with them which formed the SBC.

Then I guess I wasn't talking to nor about about you huh.

In one part I was adressing Jame's post about the Cals and non-Cals not being able to be in 'union' or working together so I brought up the SBC as a specific group that contradicts that claim. I them added in my post to you there are also individuals (or individual churches) as well who are in 'union' and or work together with each other.

 

I rather think (respectfully) ya'll (and here "all" does not necessarily mean every individual poster :thumbs: ) are missing Spurgeon's point. He is not claiming to have Arminianism and Calvinism co-existing in his belief system. He is simply saying that he preached the Word as it was written, and didn't try to force everything into a philosophical/theological system. Notice that he said it "looks rather like Arminianism." He is also saying what others have called him, not what he calls himself.

He's right, there are verses that may appear "Arminian." But that does not mean that both systems are taught in the Bible. God simply gives us both His perspective (absolute sovereign) and our perspective (complete responsibility), and let's us know that His sovereign control of all things does not in any way cancel out our responsibility to believe, love, and obey Him.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Bob House

 

Actaully what he states is that 'both' groups try to force their theological views into some texts or more specifically those which seem to be contrary to what they understand. Secondly, his usage of 'looks rather like Arminianism' pertains to the scriptures that speak in tension against certain Calvinistic views and not as if to say there is no tension. Below gives a better understanding of his point.
Thus you have him stating this in his sermon "A Defence of Calvinism"regarding the two views:

He see's and acknowledges the tensions in scripture and says specifically that they two views IN scripture can not be fully understood this side heaven.

And here you have speaking of even Calvinists twisting and wrenching scripture to fit their views (as he similarly stated of the non-Cals also previously) here regarding the text of 1 Tim 2:3-4 in his sermon called "Salvation by knowing the Truth":

Spurgeon both admits and acknowledges the tensions in scripture and both affirms and confirms them many times.

Thus he is stating that both sides are guilty of are the same thing at times.