-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Does Arminian Theology Have Different "Camps" Within it Like Calvinism?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
humblethinker
Active Member
Copy that!
seems that there as MANY though who do hold to free will, that God did not "elect" some to be saved, that there is Unlimited atonement etc
Also tend to see spritual death differently
More so than "losing salvation" wouldn't other doctrines held by them be Arminians?
There are many types of Arminians. And within each type, there are variations. Here are some types that I know of:
1. Moderate Calvinists that do not believe in unconditional election/irresistible grace, but do believe in eternal security, i.e. A True Christian will not stop trusting Christ
2. Moderate Calvinists that do not believe in unconditional election/irresistible grace, But do believe in eternal security, i.e. A True Christian can stop trusting in Christ, but is still saved even if he does not believe in Christ when he dies. (Stanley/Hodges)
3 Classic Arminians that believe a True Christian can forfeit (but not lose) his salvation by stopping believing.
4. Weslayan Arminians that believe a True Christian can lose his salvation while still believing, by continually resisting the conviction of the Holy Spirit and refusing to repent of the sin being convicted of.
5. The Roman Catholic Church that believe works is also necessay for salvation.
Note that only the RCC theology believes that works or sins can affect a True Christian's salvation. The theology of the others do not believe that works or sins can affect the security of the believer. That is not to say that some Christians in all of the above beliefs have not fallen off the theological cliff and put too much emphasis on works and sins.
1. Moderate Calvinists that do not believe in unconditional election/irresistible grace, but do believe in eternal security, i.e. A True Christian will not stop trusting Christ
2. Moderate Calvinists that do not believe in unconditional election/irresistible grace, But do believe in eternal security, i.e. A True Christian can stop trusting in Christ, but is still saved even if he does not believe in Christ when he dies. (Stanley/Hodges)
3 Classic Arminians that believe a True Christian can forfeit (but not lose) his salvation by stopping believing.
4. Weslayan Arminians that believe a True Christian can lose his salvation while still believing, by continually resisting the conviction of the Holy Spirit and refusing to repent of the sin being convicted of.
5. The Roman Catholic Church that believe works is also necessay for salvation.
Note that only the RCC theology believes that works or sins can affect a True Christian's salvation. The theology of the others do not believe that works or sins can affect the security of the believer. That is not to say that some Christians in all of the above beliefs have not fallen off the theological cliff and put too much emphasis on works and sins.
I hold to total depravity. But I reject irresistible grace. I believe God is still sovereign with in the decision making ability He provides. I also hold to perseverance of the Saints. It is just false that the opposite of Calvinism is Arminianism. Arminius to the idea of free will to far. If we are going to label people we need clear and narrow definitions. This loosey goosey labeling makes for convenient pejoratives but nothing more.
Yes, there are variations of Arminianism. Classical/Reformed, Wesleyan, moderate or mainline, Arminian in general (meaning a much more liberal view, and so on and so forth.
Actually, the Classical/Reformed Arminian holds to total depravity, death holds the definition as the Calvinist, man must be regenerated in order to be saved (however he can deny in that regenerate state).
Another point that needs to be remembered is that not all the reformers, in fact quite a few, held to unlimited atonement (including Luther, 'seemingly' John Calvin in his commentaries, among many others. It would be better or more historically accurate to say it was not till the Synod of Dort that the view of limited atonement became a prominent view in reformed circles.
I am a 4 pointer on TULIP right now, as do lean towards it being unlimited in the "potental" effect, but ONLY effectual to those actually elected/chosen in Christ by God...
Would you say the Biggest disagreement between us would be just HOW the person accepts/believes on Jesus?
You woud say we can make the conscious choice to do that by exercise our freewill, I would say until God regenerates us, gives us that ability, we cannot do it by ourselves?
Last edited by a moderator:
I do not actually agree with the term and typical definition of 'freewill'. I like the term 'limited will'. As no man can make any choice that God does not set before him. Therefore mans will is limited and thus not able to do whatever he so deems, whenever he so determines to.
However yes, I do agree that is some of the mechanics regarding salvation is where we diverge. I believe in total depravity, however, I believe that God must reveal His spiritual truth to man (otherwise no man would know or come to an understanding of them himself) and by His revealing those truths God enables him and has set before that man a choice to either believe what God has said or not, and reject the revealed truths. There is more depth to it than that but that is the quick version
Just so you understand where I'm coming from regarding the regeneration issue 'not' preceding faith.
What is interesting is that many scripture like this one:
God opens their eyes - TO [for the purpose of] turn them FROM darkness to light, FROM the power of Satan to God, so they may receive forgiveness...
Note that according to the Reformed view of regeneration, opening the eyes IS the placing them into the light, and unto God. Yet the above states God opened their eyes to turn them from...that they might receive...
Others such as these as well:
He came as a light in/to the world but note where they 'are abiding' WHENT to come to believe - they are IN darkness. If they have life then they ALREADY have and are IN the light. You CAN NOT have spiritual life and no light in relation to Christ. Again, this is contrary to regeneration preceding faith.
However this one is really very powerful regarding the issue:
NOTE: They were slaves 'when' called. The Greek bears this out more clearly.. basically put - they were still in chains when God called them to faith, not that they were set free.. then called.
These and many other scriptural reasons are why I do not hold to regeneration preceding faith, and thus faith is not something given to man (as in something man didn't have and God implanted it in him) - however I DO agree that God gave it to man in the sense that man would never have saving faith if it were not for God and Him initiating it.
Also in response to being 'dead' in the spiritual sense I simply state that the definition for such must be consistent to all passages when speaking of one being 'dead' in the spiritual sense.. which causes an issue in the reformed view regarding passages like Rom 6:2 and the emphatic nature of the statement, as well as the fact that being 'dead' in this sense also states they can choose to go against their 'deadness' (so-to-speak) as it implies in Rom 6:11
Anyway.. not trying to convince you of my view but showing a few points where I see disagreement to certain 'aspects' of the reformed view. However many of my reformed brethren on here will tell you I am the most Calvinistic Non-Cal they know :tongue3:
Last edited by a moderator:
How many times do we have to remind people there are more theological options than Ariminian or Calvinist?
you would HAVE to be one or the other though wouldn't you?
What are the other options available?
Why can't we be just Christians? Why do you have to associate someone who is not reformed with some of the terrible doctrines of Arminius? When you associate with a name you take on all that they held to. Its not even logical.
Last edited by a moderator:
You have to remember that systematic theology is a relatively new concept and didn't exist for nearly 1600 years. Though theological views and concepts were, without question, driving church orthodoxy... there was nothing set out to put one view above all others. However, while the concept of a systematic view of one theological systems is a good thing in it's own right, it also lends itself to great troubles and issues. For example -- they tend to begin to claim understanding of how God thinks, why He did what He did when He did it, trying to determine His 'unpublished' order of decrees
, ect.. IOW - you begin to box God in and tread where even the divines of old would not venture. Another interesting note is that (Cal for instance) in the past, the Reformers would declare unashamedly that the concept of regeneration preceding faith was not found in scripture but that it was a 'logical' conclusion drawn from their theological view. Now this was stated from men who were not only heavily studied in the Word themselves, but also many were scholars of the ancient languages.. yet today, you have many stating the exact opposite.. that regeneration proceding faith is not logical but found in scripture.. What changed?There are many variations of views out there but what one HAS to understand is that when dealing with specific systematic views (such as Arminianism, Calvinisim, Pelagainism, Semi-Pelaginism, Amyraldism, ect...) one has to hold Each of the views of that theological system in order to be ascribed that title. Anything less is nothing more than a pejorative title tossed on them. For example - no 5 point Arminian NOR Calvinist would call a 4 pointer or less an adherent to their system of views, and in fact would consider it tantamount to an outrage to say they are. However what CAN be stated to help clarify that you are not calling them a particular adherent to a specific system is to state something simple as - you hold to an Arminianistic view. Additionally, there is also so many variations within the systems themselves that one is hard pressed to find a people holding to the pure view it began as, but has in fact changed and modified itself over time (both Calvinism and Arminianism are this way). So even among those in their own systems you have divisions of what some hold to, again modifying the system even more.
What seems to be a new-to-the-board asine statement of ignorance is new label tossed around known as the 'No Name Theology' bit meant solely as a pejorative title assuming that having a theology with a name on the front makes one superior theologically. However it is the no-named theological crowd that has been around much, much longer than new-to-the-scene Named theologies, which of themselves can't seen to even agree within their own ranks
Last edited by a moderator:
convicted1
Guest
I am one who believes that once you're saved, God keeps you, but the other points of "A", I agree with!!
Now, my in-laws, they are "dyed in the wool" 5 point "A's"!! They believe we choose EVERY DAY to serve the Lord or not!!
I guess I am a 4 point "A".
Lutheran, for one.
I always looked at Lutheranism as being akin to "low end" calvinism..
Do you know what teaching is "peculiar" to that system, foreign to either calvinism/Arminianism?
For the Cal view -
Unlimited or General Atonement for one. Luther himself held to this position. As an example:
For both views the Lutherans hold to sacraments (aspect that impart grace to the believer).
Last edited by a moderator:
but dont both "4 pointers" and Arminians hold to that?
Would it also be HOW they view what actually occurs in infant baptism?
I hit the submit and didn't finish my post
I have added to it.What I was showing is a couple of issues that either one or both disagree with.