If you are not Reformed, you cannot believe in eternal security

Or a "Christian" .

 

Arminianism holds that men do not possess the means to save himself. It holds that natural man is in a state of apostasy and sin, unable of himself to think, will, or do anything that is truly good (such as saving faith is). Men must be born again and renewed in understanding, inclination, and will and all of his faculties in order to understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good.

There are many Christians who deny both Calvinism and Arminianism. I don't say this for debate because it is a clear fact. There are some who believe men are born with the capacity to do good, to turn to God. This is a denial of both Calvinism and Arminianism. The only other avenue is to declare these people false Christians by adding to the gospel a requirement that excludes anthropological error or misunderstanding. Regardless, the belief that men posses of their own will the ability to turn to God excludes people from the Arminian camp by definition.

 

Which is why I eschew the words "Calvinist" and "Arminian." Neither are accurate representations of what I believe the bible teaches.

Most people in this discussion seem to be unaware that James Arminius was a Dutch REFORMED Calvinist preacher! His only disagreement with what so many call "Calvinism" was on the subject of election. He believed election was based on God looking down through the ages and seeing who would believe and who would not and electing those who would believe unto salvation.

Of course, the objection to that idea is that God is Omniscient. He already knows everything. The idea of Him looking down the ages of history to see who would believe and who wouldn't is a denial of God's Omniscience. If God learned who would be saved and who wouldn't, then he learned something He didn't previously know. And that means He was not Omniscient before learning who would be saved. God does not change. And learning something new is a change. Conditional election, in this context, is a denial of the very Nature of God Himself.

 

I don't think they look at God "looking down through the ages" as a process, but instead something more akin to "logical order". It isn't chronological, so God doesn't "learn" as much as he "knows" and bases election on that pre-knowledge.

But I think all sides have issues when we start taking them apart. I agree with you about shying away from the words "Calvinist" and "Arminian", both because they are not accurate representations of what the bible teaches and they have to a large extent lost meaning today. I think it better to call ourselves Christians and speak plainly what we believe.

 

Hmmmm. Are you suggesting my Particular Baptist faith is in a man-made formula and not in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ?

 

He believed he was secure in Christ. Remember the Remonstrance was published after his death and had been edited by his followers. It was they, not him, who left room for doubt about perseverance.

 

He knew because He elected them in eternity and saved them in time. Yep. Works for me.

 

So the difference is between God choosing and God creating.