Christian: Arminianism vs. Calvinism

[FerventGodSeeker]

If you are a Christian, do you identify more with the theology of Arminianism or Calvinism? What philosophical, Scriptural, or historical reasons do you have to support either of these systems?

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Scuba Pete]

Neither... just Christianity. I am always suspect of anything that seperates itself from the root:

I Corinthians 3:1 Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? 4 For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men? 5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8 The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building. NIV

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Neither... just Christianity. I am always suspect of anything that seperates itself from the root:

I Corinthians 3:1 Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? 4 For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men? 5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8 The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building. NIV

Ok...so does "just Christianity" agree more with the thoughts of Arminianism or Calvinism? Do I need to specifically define these things so that everyone knows what they are? Sorry, I thought most Christians would be familiar with at least the basic beliefs of the two.

FGS

 

[michel]

If you are a Christian, do you identify more with the theology of Arminianism or Calvinism? What philosophical, Scriptural, or historical reasons do you have to support either of these systems?

FerventGodSeeker

Not surprisingly (If you know me) I was not aware of the differences............

If the text below is accurate, and to be relied upon, I am more Arminanist.

Fom:-http://www.spreadinglight.com/theology/armvscal.html
I will examine the five points of Calvinism and contrast them with Arminianism. To save my fingers from typing the words a hundred times, I’ll use (C) for Calvinism and (A) for Arminianism from now on.
(C) Total Depravity vs. (A) Natural Ability
Total depravity is best explained by quoting Romans in saying, “no one seeks God, no not one.” Because of an inherent sinful nature, man does not search for God and will not ever. Natural ability is not the idea that man can save himself but rather once prodded by the Holy Spirit a person may choose Christ. Man, while flawed, is not so bad that he will never look to God on his own. (This, in my own thoughts is contra the above scripture from Romans)
(C) Unconditional Election vs. (A) Election based on (fore)knowledge

<FONT face=Arial size=2>In Unconditional Election, God hand selects who is going to be saved. No matter what a person may have to say about it, God is going to save them despite themselves. Good examples of this are Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Babylonians and the Apostle Paul. Both were in the business of persecuting the people of God. Nebuchadnezzar spent seven years as a madman before turning to the Lord while Paul was blinded on the road to

 

[Quiddity]

Ok...so does "just Christianity" agree more with the thoughts of Arminianism or Calvinism? Do I need to specifically define these things so that everyone knows what they are? Sorry, I thought most Christians would be familiar with at least the basic beliefs of the two.

FGS

Most probably are, but go ahead and define it anyways.

 

[Quiddity]

Neither... just Christianity. I am always suspect of anything that seperates itself from the root:

I Corinthians 3:1 Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? 4 For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men? 5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8 The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building. NIV

Perhaps we shouldn't listen to men at all? Perhaps we should reject them?

Luke 10:
16
Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." 17 The seventy (-two) returned rejoicing, and said, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us because of your name."

 

[Scuba Pete]

Sorry, I thought most Christians would be familiar with at least the basic beliefs of the two.

Sorry, but this Christian limits his study to the scriptures and how they apply to ME. If God ever finishes changing my character sufficiently, I might start studying other disciplines a bit more.

 

[Quiddity]

Sorry, but this Christian limits his study to the scriptures and how they apply to ME. If God ever finishes changing my character sufficiently, I might start studying other disciplines a bit more.

Maybe that's why you are at RF?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Most probably are, but go ahead and define it anyways.

Calvinism is typically outlined by the five-point acronym TULIP :

- Total Depravity: man is naturally sinful and both cannot and will not seek God or save himself on his own
- Unconditional Election: God's election of believers is not based on foreseen merits or human choice, but is purely God's own decision.
- Limited Atonement: Christ sacrifice is sufficient to atone only for the sins of the elect, not all of humanity.
- Irresistible Grace: God's grace is irresistible, i.e. if a person is chosen as elect by God, the person cannot ultimately resist God's choice and will turn to God and be saved.
- Perseverance of the Saints: Salvation cannot be lost.

There is no nifty acronym to help define Arminianism, but I found this outline on Wikipedia:

"Arminianism holds to the following tenets:

• Men are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation
• Salvation is possible by grace alone
• Works of human effort are not cause or contribution to salvation
• God's election is conditional on faith in Jesus
• Jesus' atonement was potentially for all people
• God allows his grace to be resisted by those unwilling to believe
• Salvation can be lost, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith"

Hope this helps.

FGS

 

[michel]

Calvinism is typically outlined by the five-point acronym TULIP :

- Total Depravity: man is naturally sinful and both cannot and will not seek God or save himself on his own
- Unconditional Election: God's election of believers is not based on foreseen merits or human choice, but is purely God's own decision.
- Limited Atonement: Christ sacrifice is sufficient to atone only for the sins of the elect, not all of humanity.
- Irresistible Grace: God's grace is irresistible, i.e. if a person is chosen as elect by God, the person cannot ultimately resist God's choice and will turn to God and be saved.
- Perseverance of the Saints: Salvation cannot be lost.

There is no nifty acronym to help define Arminianism, but I found this outline on Wikipedia:

"Arminianism holds to the following tenets:

• Men are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation
• Salvation is possible by grace alone
• Works of human effort are not cause or contribution to salvation
• God's election is conditional on faith in Jesus
• Jesus' atonement was potentially for all people
• God allows his grace to be resisted by those unwilling to believe
• Salvation can be lost, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith"

Hope this helps.

FGS

Going by those definitions, I can't subscribe to all of the points in Arminianism.

 

[Mike182]

If you are a Christian, do you identify more with the theology of Arminianism or Calvinism? What philosophical, Scriptural, or historical reasons do you have to support either of these systems?

FerventGodSeeker

from what i understand of calvin, i disagree. select few? no thankyou....

i am affraid i don't know anything about Arminianism :sorry1:

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Going by those definitions, I can't subscribe to all of the points in Arminianism.

And to be fair, you don't necesarily have to agree with every point to be considered basically as a part of the theology. For example, one who accepts all the points of TULIP would be technically called a "Five-Point Calvinist"; however, there is such a thing as a "Four-Point Calvinist", who disagrees with L, and believes that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for the whole world, etc.

FGS

 

[Mike182]

And to be fair, you don't necesarily have to agree with every point to be considered basically as a part of the theology. For example, one who accepts all the points of TULIP would be technically called a "Five-Point Calvinist"; however, there is such a thing as a "Four-Point Calvinist", who disagrees with L, and believes that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for the whole world, etc.

FGS

but calvinism is structured around those 5 points, if you don't have all of those 5 points, you don't have calvinism

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

but calvinism is structured around those 5 points, if you don't have all of those 5 points, you don't have calvinism

Like I said, not necesarily. Those 5 points are the basis, but a four-point Calvinist who believes in universal atonement is still very much a Calvinist...besides, my OP simply asked which you identify with more.

FGS

 

[Mike182]

Like I said, not necesarily. Those 5 points are the basis, but a four-point Calvinist who believes in universal atonement is still very much a Calvinist...besides, my OP simply asked which you identify with more.

FGS

surely what you would have is something that undeniably looks like calvinism, but is not what calvin tought, so is not calvinism.... but that is for a different thread.

i do not identify at all with calvinism, and i am looking into Arminianism, but so far, i disagree with parts

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

surely what you would have is something that undeniably looks like calvinism, but is not what calvin tought, so is not calvinism.... but that is for a different thread.

Well the teachings have certainly adapted over time, so that it would be perfectly appropriate to call a "Four-Point Calvinist" a Calvinist, although you are correct that such would not be the "original' Calvinism

i do not identify at all with calvinism, and i am looking into Arminianism, but so far, i disagree with parts

What parts, out of curiosity?

FGS

 

[Scuba Pete]

Maybe that's why you are at RF?

Actually, I have come here NOT to learn about Calvanism but to learn about Victor and Michel and Deut and... many, many people who post here. While I don't agree with much of what they say (and with how some say it) I find that it causes me to think about areas of my own Christianity and heart and possibly to act on the same.

But back to the OP... why do we even feel a NEED to describe ourselves as anything but Christian? Paul was simply aghast at the idea of a "Pauline" doctrine, and I have an idea that Calvin felt the same way. I am certain that Luther would be a tad distraught that there are "Lutherans" or that he gave birth to "Protestantism".

 

[Mike182]

What parts, out of curiosity?

primarily, the idea that we are saved by grace alone - i think that faith is only meaningful if it affects our actions and perceptions in our life, and to say we are saved by grace alone and not by our actions makes no impact on our actions or perceptions, ergo i feel that holding that belief makes faith meaningless.

 

[Mike182]

But back to the OP... why do we even feel a NEED to describe ourselves as anything but Christian? Paul was simply aghast at the idea of a "Pauline" doctrine, and I have an idea that Calvin felt the same way. I am certain that Luther would be a tad distraught that there are "Lutherans" or that he gave birth to "Protestantism".

no, i think Luther wanted people to subscribe to his branch of thinking, he was very adament over the issue of the Euchrist with Zwengli.... evidence that Luther had his view, and he wanted people to agree with it and follow it.

did Calvin not create his own church system in Geneva? surely the fact that he governed religion in Geneva shows that he was not upset that people were subscribing to, and practising his ideas...

you are right, i see no need to describe myself as anything but "christian", but there are church leaders who make the distinction, and they must have had a reason for doing so.

 

[Polaris]

Calvinism:

1. Total Depravity: man is naturally sinful and both cannot and will not seek God or save himself on his own
2. Unconditional Election: God's election of believers is not based on foreseen merits or human choice, but is purely God's own decision.
3. Limited Atonement: Christ sacrifice is sufficient to atone only for the sins of the elect, not all of humanity.
4. Irresistible Grace: God's grace is irresistible, i.e. if a person is chosen as elect by God, the person cannot ultimately resist God's choice and will turn to God and be saved.
5. Perseverance of the Saints: Salvation cannot be lost.

1. Man may be naturally sinful, but to declare that we cannot and will not seek God on our own is a stretch.
2. I completely disagree.
3. Again I disagree. I believe the atonement is available for all of humanity, unfortunately not all will merit the full redemptive power it provides.
4. I disagree... this seems to depend on #2.
5. I disagree... similar to #4.

Arminianism:

1. Men are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation, it is possible by grace alone.
2. Works of human effort are not cause or contribution to salvation, it is conditional on faith in Jesus.
3. Jesus' atonement was potentially for all people.
4. God allows his grace to be resisted by those unwilling to believe.
5. Salvation can be lost, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith.

1. I disagree. God's grace is vital, but our efforts (good or bad) are worth something too.
2. I disagree. Faith in Jesus is vital, but our efforts (good or bad) are worth something too.
3. I agree.
4. I agree.
5. I agree.

Looks like Arminianism wins 3 to 0.