a comparison

[amity]

What you list is the strawman argument for arminianism calvinists use. I do not know of any non cal here, or anywhere that feels man has a "spark of good left".

Omigoodness, I hear it all the time. People deny depravity more often than not. Right here on BB.

I also do not understand why choosing good over evil requires this so called "spark" either. Since Adam and Eve were created "good" according to the Bible, did they require a "spark" of evil to choose sin?

Yeah, as a matter of fact! But the question is not... are we compelled to do only evil every second of our lives without respite. The question is... can we initiate a relationship with God without God extending His grace to us first?

Plus, look at the OP:
"Lets let each side explain what they believe and why, without bashing someone or what they believe.
For a simple comparison I'm starting here, but will no limit anything to one site."

So this is hopefully not just another thread with each side showing the other's mistakes! I think clearly stating the content of the two belief systems in a nutshell is a good place to start. We usually have about 8 or 10 threads of Arminians bashing Calvinism and vice versa going on here simultaneously. Don't need another one, do we?

 

[webdog]

Arminianism
5. Falling From Grace - If man cannot be saved by God unless it is man's will to be saved, then man cannot continue in salvation unless he continues to will to be saved. In other words, man can fall away from grace and lose his salvation.

Calviniam
5."P" = Perseverance of the Saints - The Calvinists believed that salvation is entirely the work of the Lord, and that man has absolutely nothing to do with the process. The saints will persevere because God will see to it that He will finish the work He has begun

Calvinists must have a really short memory, as I hardly see Lot "persevering" in S&G, yet was declared righteous. Doesn't quite fit the "P" as explained by the calvinist.

I don't know about the "process", but salvation is totally of God even if our faith is genuine. Since faith in Christ is required for salvation, it looks like God has given man responsibility.

 

[webdog]

Arminianism
4. Obstructable Grace - Arminius believed that since God wanted all men to be saved, He sent the Holy Spirit to "woo" all men to Christ, but since man has absolute "free will," he is able to resist God's will for his life. He believed that God's will to save all men can be frustrated by the finite will of man. He also taught that man exercises his own will first, and then is born again.

Calviniam
4. "I" = Irresistible Grace - The Calvinists believed that the God possesses irresistible grace that cannot be obstructed. They taught that the free will of man is so far removed from salvation, that the elect are regenerated (made spiritually alive) by God even before expressing faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. If a totally depraved person wasn't made alive by the Holy Spirit, such a calling of God would be impossible.

According to Pastor Larry, the highlighted is not what calvinism teaches. Is this "brand" the hyper kind, or classic calvinism? The calvinists can't even agree...

 

[webdog]

Omigoodness, I hear it all the time. People deny depravity more often than not. Right here on BB.

Can you show where...or by "denying depravity" are you referring to the aforementioned strawman I stated?

Yeah, as a matter of fact! But the question is not... are we compelled to do only evil every second of our lives without respite. The question is... can we initiate a relationship with God without God extending His grace to us first?

I'm sorry, but Scripture tells us that God's creation was deemed "good". There was no "spark" of evil created within Adam and Eve.

We can NOT initiate a relationship with God of our own free will, and I don't see anyone on here stating such.

 

[amity]

Can you show where...or by "denying depravity" are you referring to the aforementioned strawman I stated?

Look, webdog, you may be the orthodox-est and most articulate Arminian ever. Good! Just who we need! Because this thread is about examining Arminianism. Let's keep a cool head and just look at Arminianism and what it really teaches. You may be a very good person to do that. And put the proving and disproving on the back burner for once.

As I think you can gather if you have actually read these posts, I am on fairly civil terms with actual Arminianism. (I said it was a sub-type of Calvinism! Highest praise I can give, right?) I will ask questions, but I will not attack Arminianism, as I think you will agree I have not thus far. In return, I would like the same consideration from you. Because that is not what this thread is about (hopefully!). Just deal with Arminianism and what it teaches.

As Gordon Slocum would say, were he here, "your turn!"

 

[webdog]

It's hard to deal with arminianism and what it teaches, if it is being misrepresented, yet slightly, or the opposite stance (calvinism) as being deemed the truthful of the two. We must first deal in errors of what is perceived as being truth before attacking the "errors" of the other.

 

[amity]

It's hard to deal with arminianism and what it teaches, if it is being misrepresented, yet slightly, or the opposite stance (calvinism) as being deemed the truthful of the two. We must first deal in errors of what is perceived as being truth before attacking the "errors" of the other.

That is what we are trying to do in this thread. I tried to provide a couple of articles that present Arminianism (and Pelagianism) accurately and objectively. Did I succeed? If not, please post what Arminius believed in summary, or link us to a website.

 

[donnA]

I don't think it matter now what Arminius believed, if it is different then what arminians believe now. I spent about 3 hours on this, with numberous browers open to different sites, and I kpet find thing the same types of stuff.

 

[amity]

Pelagianism has been almost universally viewed as heresy for over 1500 years. The fact that it, in half-baked form, has now become the predominant Christian belief 'system' (I will not call it a theology) of modern America doesn't change that.

If anyone joins this thread with an attempt at a coherent statement of beliefs underpinning this view that man initiates faith himself, it will totally surprise me. I don't believe any such thing exists, which is why that Wikipedia article on Pelagianism is woefully short. They only seek legitimacy by passing themselves off as 'Arminians.' But let's not fall for that. That is not what they are.

II Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.​

 

[reformedbeliever]

Amity is quite right about what most people calling Arminianism is actually semi or full blown pelagianism.

Donna, Arminius believed that God gave all men a measure of faith. Then it was actually up to the man to believe or to not believe. Those God foresaw believing were elected.

He also believed that there was no salvic goodness in mankind.... or total depravity.... hense the need of a "measure of faith" or as some call "previenient grace". I don't think my spelling is correct on that... but I'm tired.

I think Grudem does a good job of explaining it. I'll look it up when I have time and try to post it here. I think it was Grudem.

 

[johnp.]

Cool! See you tomorrow kids.

john.

 

[rsr]

Donna, Arminius believed that God gave all men a measure of faith. Then it was actually up to the man to believe or to not believe. Those God foresaw believing were elected.

He also believed that there was no salvic goodness in mankind.... or total depravity.... hense the need of a "measure of faith" or as some call "previenient grace"..

----------------------------------------------

In this state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, "Without me ye can do nothing." St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: "Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing." That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man.

The mind of man, in this state, is dark, destitute of the saving knowledge of God, and, according to the Apostle, incapable of those things which belong to the Spirit of God. For "the animal man has no perception of the things of the Spirit of God;" (1 Cor. ii, 14)

... The Second thing to be observed is, that as the very first commencement of every good thing, so likewise the progress, continuance and confirmation, nay, even the perseverance in good, are not from ourselves, but from God through the Holy Spirit.

... "Subsequent or following grace does indeed assist the good purpose of man; but this good purpose would have no existence unless through preceding or preventing grace. And though the desire of man, which is called good, be assisted by grace when it begins to be; yet it does not begin without grace, but is inspired by Him, concerning whom the Apostle writes thus, thanks be to God, who put the same earnest care into the heart of Titus for you. If God incites any one to have 'an earnest care' for others, He will 'put it into the heart' of some other person to have 'an earnest care' for him." Augustinus, Contra. 2 Epist. Pelag. l. 2. c. 9.

-- On the Free Will of Man and Its Powers

 

[rsr]

Pelagianism has been almost universally viewed as heresy for over 1500 years.

Quite right. Doesn't keep it from turning up repeatedly, even among folks who should know better. Perhaps it's because it's the kind of religion that men can understand - because they make the mistake of thinking God is like they are.

The fact that it, in half-baked form, has now become the predominant Christian belief 'system' (I will not call it a theology) of modern America doesn't change that.

Well ... I suppose you are referring to Semipelagianism. My first objection is to the name of the thing itself, which, of course no adherent would lay claim to. After all, to be "half-heretic" isn't a particularly a satisfying label.

In addition, I believe it obscures the gulf that exists between Pelagianism on the one hand and Semipelagianism, Arminianism and Calvinism on the other. Pelagianism is monergistic, eliminating the need for God's grace at all. Now, however you feel about synergists, it seems to me that they are in an entirely different position than monergists who can practically do without grace.

 

[amity]

Yes, that is why I think the distinction between true Arminianism and Pelagianism is an important one to make. And to tell the truth, I don't see any distinction between the Pelagianism that passes for 'Arminianism' and the heresy of Pelagius. We have all heard purported 'Arminians' who will quote every single tenet of Pelagius verbatim and then attempt to portray that as Arminianism, to the endless confusion of practically everybody, as we have seen ample evidence of in this thread. I don't see anything 'semi' about it. True Arminianism I feel a certain kinship for and certainly don't want to lump them in with Pelagians. Their beliefs are quite different from Pelagius'. Webdog, for example, who i don't doubt is probably a very sincere and well informed Arminian who was quite justifiably offended to see Pelagian views portrayed as Arminian.

Gotta sign off for tonight, friends, so I can be bright eyed and bushy tailed in church tomorrow. G'nite.

 

[donnA]

Pelagianism has been almost universally viewed as heresy for over 1500 years.

Arninism was declared a heresy in 1618.
In 1618, they considered arminism to be pelagianism, that would be those people who were there and knew the teaching first hand.

 

[amity]

Arninism was declared a heresy in 1618.
In 1618, they considered arminism to be pelagianism, that would be those people who were there and knew the teaching first hand.

Did they consider it Pelagianism? Please show me where the overlap is. I may be missing it! Some people have tried to hybridize the two, yes, and that is what is going on today. If someone tells you that it is entirely up to man's "free will" to make a decision to believe, that is Pelagianism. If someone tells you God must first extend grace and change the heart, that is Arminianism. To me that is a fundamental difference after which there can be no real convergence. And sure enough on the other side we see faith versus works. Pelagians must in the end deny the saving work of Christ, as the Wikipedia article shows, because in the end they come to the view that they can of their own free will do all that is necessary to salvation. If it is of works, then it is no more of grace.

I think that although some Calvinists may consider Arminianism a heresy, EVERYBODY considers Pelagianism to be a heresy. Catholics, Calvinists, Arminians, Orthodox, Mormons, Copts, and everyone else! Even modern day Pelagians would consider Pelagianism to be a heresy if they recognized it for what it is. But the facade of 'Arminianism' seduces people into believing they are well within mainstream Christianity.

 

[johnp.]

Hello donnA.

Arminianism
1. Free Will - Arminius believed that the fall of man was not total, meaning that there was still enough good left in man for him to will to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

The Remonstrance.

Article 3.
[Deprivation - corresponds to the first of TULIP’s five points, Total Depravity]

That man does not posses saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is necessary that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, and will, and all his faculties, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me you can do nothing.”
http://www.crivoice.org/creedremonstrants.html

Chuck Smith.

Free Will - Arminius believed that the fall of man was not total, meaning that there was still enough good left in man for him to will to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
http://christianity.about.com/od/denominations/a/calvinarminian.htm

Chuck Smith.

In these five articles they advocated conditional rather than absolute predestination, universal rather than limited atonement, the necessity of regeneration and transformation through the Holy Spirit, and the possibility of both resistance to and rejection of God’s grace.
http://www.crivoice.org/creedremonstrants.html

Is Arminius saying that a man must be born again before he can decide to resist or accept salvation?

john.

 

[donnA]

Did they consider it Pelagianism? Please show me where the overlap is. I may be missing it! Some people have tried to hybridize the two, yes, and that is what is going on today. If someone tells you that it is entirely up to man's "free will" to make a decision to believe, that is Pelagianism. If someone tells you God must first extend grace and change the heart, that is Arminianism. To me that is a fundamental difference after which there can be no real convergence. And sure enough on the other side we see faith versus works. Pelagians must in the end deny the saving work of Christ, as the Wikipedia article shows, because in the end they come to the view that they can of their own free will do all that is necessary to salvation. If it is of works, then it is no more of grace.

I think that although some Calvinists may consider Arminianism a heresy, EVERYBODY considers Pelagianism to be a heresy. Catholics, Calvinists, Arminians, Orthodox, Mormons, Copts, and everyone else! Even modern day Pelagians would consider Pelagianism to be a heresy if they recognized it for what it is. But the facade of 'Arminianism' seduces people into believing they are well within mainstream Christianity.

This is from the official document, arminianism was considered heresy by the church who knew the original teachings of arninianism, even back then they associated the original teaching with Pelagianism.

For this savors of the teaching of Pelagius, and is opposed to the doctrine of the apostle when he writes: "All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast (Eph 2:3-9)."

http://www.reformed.org/documents/i...www.reformed.org/documents/synod_of_dort.html

 

[donnA]

Calvinists must have a really short memory, as I hardly see Lot "persevering" in S&G, yet was declared righteous. Doesn't quite fit the "P" as explained by the calvinist.

I don't know about the "process", but salvation is totally of God even if our faith is genuine. Since faith in Christ is required for salvation, it looks like God has given man responsibility.

your statement proves point 5, Lot was declared righteous, not based on himself or anything he did, but based on God alone, perseverance means not losing salvation, if Lot was declared righteous, despite what he did and how he lived, the he did persevere.

 

[donnA]

gotta go kids and read a chapter of a book for class tonight, and get supper ready.