Calvinism VS Arminianism Comparison Chart by L. Boettner

Sorry but this has in fact been true and is still true among some today.

I can answer that. I would say people in general but with regards to cals this is true also believe that what is posted on these forums establishes truth. I remember Reformed saying somewhat recently that they need to defeat any view that is other than Calvinism with regards to Soteriology. They want to be the last post on an issue as they do not want what a non cal posts left to stand.

Everyone should avoid these characterizations but often non cals are responding to attacks from cals. And yes these characterizations are in fact attacks. They are good for debate tactics but stifle true discussion. I do not get involved in those debates near as much as I used to because of it.

Then there is the often trotted out mantra, "you must be feeling convicted if you are offended by what I say about your position" (Mark paraphrase of their words).

 

I dont care how close you think I am. That is irrelevant.

 

Sigh irrelevant not all who hold to free will are arminians

 

Who is "us"

 

I'm not sure where you think a "strawman" is being used, since a strawman is a false caricature deliberately set up in order to then tear it back down, winning the "argument".
To me, there is no such thing taking place here.

From the viewpoint of "Calvinism", anything not "Calvinism" is "Arminian".
But for use of a better term, "Monergism" versus "Synergism" fits even better, from my perspective.
God doing everything, or God relying on man to perform some action, in addition to God performing His work.

To me, the position is being presented from a genuine understanding of Scripture, and a genuine attempt to characterize the teachings and beliefs appropriately.
Since I have 25 years of experience on the "other side", I can tell you that in all honesty, the chart is correct.

Of course, you are free to disagree.

 

As I see it, there's nothing dishonest about it.

You're free to disagree of course, but if anything, what the chart represents is honesty.
One side's view of the other.
One side's view of the teachings of the other side.

For further support of the "Arminian position", may I suggest that you review the chart found here?
An Outline of the FACTS of Arminianism vs. The TULIP of Calvinism

It represents an honest admission to the very same points being developed by the "Calvinist", from people who disagree with "Calvinism" and affirm the other perspective of what is contained in @1689Dave 's chart.

To me, just because you don't agree with it, does not make it any less true.
However, if you were to codify what you, as a pastor, teaches from the pulpit in chart form, I would be very interested to see how you differ from the chart.

Why do I make this statement?

Because I've reviewed, in depth, the teachings and writings from many prominent "Traditionalists" including David W. Cloud, Max Younce, Cooper Abrams III, Curtis Hutson, John R. Rice, Dwight L. Moody, Billy Sunday, Billy Graham, Adrian Rogers, Mark G. Cambron and many others...
And to me, all of them agree, to one extent or another, with the body of 4 of the 5 points as taught from the "Arminian" perspective.
The only disagreements are with regard to loss of salvation, and election being either characterized as "corporate" or as "foreseen faith".

So, if you're fixed on the chart being dishonest, then please come up with your own in order to clear the air and make your position better understood.
If you're fixed on "Calvinists" being dishonest, then I can't help you there... and neither can most of us, as I see it.
To me, continuing to level the charge of "dishonesty" isn't going to help anyone to better understand the "Traditionalist" position....

Which, I might add, I already do, having been raised in it.

 

As a "Calvinist", I tolerate quite a bit, especially coming from not only the "Traditionalist" side, but the "Wesleyan" side.
To me, saying "I'm not going to tolerate it" is like saying, "the sun won't set until I say it will".

I have no power over you labeling me as a "Calvinist", so the opposite can be said:
You have no control over what I, or any other "Calvinist" will call you.

However, I can personally assure you that I will do my level best not to label you as an "Arminian", because I happen to know that that offends you...but I still maintain that what you teach and believe can be found on the opposite side of the chart, at least in the first 4 points.

As I've stated in other threads, I know the "Traditionalist" position, intimately.

I'll add myself to the list, if only to be objective.

As I see things, when you can respond with a set of "points" of your own, that does not resemble the ones found in the chart, then to me, you will have gone a long way towards dispelling the apparent myth that "Traditionalists" are "Arminians", in the modern sense.

In other words and in my opinion, when you stop referring to those that agree with "TULIP" as "Calvinists", then perhaps you may start to get some airplay with many of them not referring to you as an "Arminian".
Of course I cannot speak for them, but that is my prediction for the future.

However, I doubt that reciprocation will come about, for the same reason you may doubt the opposite coming into being for me and others like me...
You don't appear to want to to refer to those that agree with TULIP, as anything other than "Calvinists".

So, instead of getting upset when people characterize you as an "Arminian", you may wish to reflect on your own treatment of the "other side", and stop referring to them as "Calvinists", "calvies", etc.

Honestly.

 

Of course you don't. What remains true is we do not claim it therefore it is not our position, therefore your characterization is false and dishonest.

 

You are a newbie. I have been through these debates on this forum for years. I have posted my positions on this board so many times I cannot count. You coming along recently doesn't change that. That chart is not my standard. I reject it and you cals/reformed or whatever flavor you want to be do not get to set the standard. Sorry

 

So?
I think we've been through this before, haven't we?

Again, so?
I don't feel the need to respect you any more than I would anyone else.
Should I?

Do you feel that your years of being here warrants a degree of esteem from me, that others may not be deserving of?
Respectfully,

If you're looking for preferential treatment from me, I think you're going to wait a long time.
That's not me.
I don't view any other believer as being better than the next.

That's fine.
I still know your position, having read past threads.

To me, yours is no different than any other "Traditionalist" that I've ever sat under in their teaching, or ever read about in their writings.

I didn't think it would.

I respect that.

Then may I suggest that you reciprocate accordingly?

 

Oh, you mean atheists that reject determinism? They're closer to Arminianism, I guess.

 

Respectfully, I disagree.

It may be false, but it is honest, from the other side's position.
It is not a deliberate mis-characterization designed to make you angry...it is a "best effort" at comparing the "Traditionalist" position, with what is found on the chart.

What, specifically, do you disagree with on the chart with respect to the "Arminian position"?

 

Bub you are not paying attention to what I am saying. You are debating not discussing. God Bless

 

No its not. It is an attempt to demonize something to shut down debate.

 

There are too many things to list. Perhaps if you could present a text version of this chart whereby I could copy-and-paste the words verbatim I would list everything I object to. But I'm sure not going to read the text and type it all into a post. It would take most of the rest of the afternoon. Such is the mischaracterization of my non-Cal position.

Examples, from the Free Will section:
"Man's eternal destiny depends on how he uses Free Will."
"Man's will is not enslaved to his spiritual condition."
"Faith is the sinner's gift to God and man's contribution to salvation"

Just wrong.

That's just taking a quick look at the first section.

 

As I understand, the deciding question is: how does a sinner, separated from God as a result of spiritual death, gain spiritual life?

Does God, the Holy Spirit, make the sinner aware of His existence and ask him if he wants to exist in heaven or hell for eternity? If so, the sinner determines his eternal existence by his will without any influence from the Holy Spirit or satan; the Holy Spirit and satan would have to make an alliance for this neutrality to be valid.

I find no scriptural bases for the free-will process (as I call it) to be valid. To the contrary:
1Pe 5:8 KJV - Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

What was God's (the Father) purpose in sending the Savior to live among mortal men?
Luk 19:10 KJV - For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

Col 2:13 KJV - And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

There are numerous additional scriptures available to support my position. I expect many will take issue with my views. My only request is that you provide scripture to support your position.

Eph 1:18 KJV - The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

To God be the glory for His calling the Saints out from among the lost souls.

 

I can see how you might come to that conclusion.

However, I don't think @1689Dave 's express purpose was to demonize it.
I think it was yet another attempt to get "Traditionalists" to take a close look at what their position is, and carefully compare it to that of self-identified "Arminians".
It may also have been an attempt to get "Arminians" to understand what "Calvinism" really is, and how it compares to the popular teachings of salvation today.

In the end, if you wish to ignore it, then that it is up to you, sir.
If you wish to take offense to it, then again, that's up to you.

 

Uh huh