Does it matter To An Arminian IF A calvinist Is Low/Mod/High One?

[JesusFan]

seems that there are some versions of Cal that tend to "excite" the Arms here more so than others...

I hold to what would be seen as being more moderate in my views on Calvinism, as hold to unlimited atonement, do see more "Grey areas" regarding free will faith than some other Cal tend to...

In your experience in posting here on BB, and out in the "real world" of Christianity...

To you Arms are all Cal the same in your dealings discussions with us, or some views within Calvinism "easier" for you to dialog with understand than others?

 

[Winman]

Some Cals are easier to dialogue with, but this seems to be more due to maturity than what degree of Calvinism they hold to.

I personally believe all 5 points of Calvinism is error. But as a system, it is extremely consistent and logical within itself. For instance, if Total Depravity (inability) is true, then the other 4 points must be true. So when you say you hold to unlimited atonement, to me that is inconsistent. If man is utterly unable to respond to the gospel unless God regenerates him, then Limited Atonement must be true.

Although I find Luke's views utterly unscriptural, nevertheless I find him to be the most consistent Calvinist here. But even Luke denies he is a hyper.

That does not make sense to me. If I truly believed the 5 points of Calvinism were true, I would absolutely be hardcore hyper. It is the logical and consistent end of the 5 points.

 

[JesusFan]

Some Cals are easier to dialogue with, but this seems to be more due to maturity than what degree of Calvinism they hold to.

I personally believe all 5 points of Calvinism is error. But as a system, it is extremely consistent and logical within itself. For instance, if Total Depravity (inability) is true, then the other 4 points must be true. So when you say you hold to unlimited atonement, to me that is inconsistent. If man is utterly unable to respond to the gospel unless God regenerates him, then Limited Atonement must be true.

I tend to hold to the notion that God does truly love all mankind , and that in Jesus death upon the Cross God made it "possible/passable" that all could be saved, like a general love for mankind, but realising that no one can come to Jesus unless he draws them, and sends to them Holy Spirit, that he made a specific election to reddem from host of humanity that ALL were destined to Hell to save some...

Although I find Luke's views utterly unscriptural, nevertheless I find him to be the most consistent Calvinist here. But even Luke denies he is a hyper.

That does not make sense to me. If I truly believed the 5 points of Calvinism were true, I would absolutely be hardcore hyper. It is the logical and consistent end of the 5 points.

if one was a "hard core" Arminian though, one would hold that humans have remained "enough" in image of God after the Fall that some of us would save ourselves, as we COULD keep the law and avoid needing Christ as Saviour, would save ourselves!

 

[StefanM]

if one was a "hard core" Arminian though, one would hold that humans have remained "enough" in image of God after the Fall that some of us would save ourselves, as we COULD keep the law and avoid needing Christ as Saviour, would save ourselves!

That's not Arminian. That's Pelagian.

 

[JesusFan]

That's not Arminian. That's Pelagian.

I thought that arminian theology though states that when Adam fell, human race was "marred" by that, but still retained enough of image of God to still have free will to earnestly reply to Gospel?

Aren't there some in that view who do not hold to original sin/depravity, so that man is still able to by free will choose not to sin, and that God will not count them as sinners until they actually do sin ?

If man can keep law by act of will, at least a possibility, and is not with original sin/nature, would that part of Arminian theology actually allow fro personal salvation somewhat?

 

[StefanM]

I thought that arminian theology though states that when Adam fell, human race was "marred" by that, but still retained enough of image of God to still have free will to earnestly reply to Gospel?

Aren't there some in that view who do not hold to original sin/depravity, so that man is still able to by free will choose not to sin, and that God will not count them as sinners until they actually do sin ?

If man can keep law by act of will, at least a possibility, and is not with original sin/nature, would that part of Arminian theology actually allow fro personal salvation somewhat?

All Arminians (at least in the true sense of the term) affirm that no one is able to save himself/herself.

 

[quantumfaith]

That's not Arminian. That's Pelagian.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[JesusFan]

All Arminians (at least in the true sense of the term) affirm that no one is able to save himself/herself.

But is it true then that all "true" calvinists who believe in all 5 points of TULIP would "have " to be Hyper Cals?

 

[StefanM]

But is it true then that all "true" calvinists who believe in all 5 points of TULIP would "have " to be Hyper Cals?

Not at all. The supralapsarian/infralapsarian debate is important here.

 

[Winman]

I thought that arminian theology though states that when Adam fell, human race was "marred" by that, but still retained enough of image of God to still have free will to earnestly reply to Gospel?

Aren't there some in that view who do not hold to original sin/depravity, so that man is still able to by free will choose not to sin, and that God will not count them as sinners until they actually do sin ?

If man can keep law by act of will, at least a possibility, and is not with original sin/nature, would that part of Arminian theology actually allow fro personal salvation somewhat?

Adam and Eve were created without a sin nature into a sinless world and sinned the very first time they were tempted.

This shows that a person does not have to have a sin nature to sin. Satan was also created perfect but sinned, as well as the angels that followed him.

If Adam and Eve were created without a sin nature into a sinless world with only one single law to keep and sinned the very first time they were tempted, what are the chances a person born into a world full of sin with many temptations and many laws to keep will not sin?

We are flesh, and the flesh is weak.

 

[JesusFan]

Adam and Eve were created without a sin nature into a sinless world and sinned the very first time they were tempted.

This shows that a person does not have to have a sin nature to sin. Satan was also created perfect but sinned, as well as the angels that followed him.

ALL of them though were created that way by god... We are born into sin, having inherited the curse of the Fall, and receiveing sin natures from Adam...
If Adam and Eve were created without a sin nature into a sinless world with only one single law to keep and sinned the very first time they were tempted, what are the chances a person born into a world full of sin with many temptations and many laws to keep will not sin?

Agreed, but doesn't this postulate at least potentially means to save yourself, by keeping the Law by thias scenerio?

We are flesh, and the flesh is weak.

just saying that if you take what you wrote here to its "logical conclusion"...

 

[JesusFan]

Not at all. The supralapsarian/infralapsarian debate is important here.

been a while since bible school...

What are major beliefs for each, and major difference?

 

[quantumfaith]

been a while since bible school...

What are major beliefs for each, and major difference?

Short version:

Supra = double predestinarians
Infra = single predestinarians

 

[JesusFan]

Short version:

Supra = double predestinarians
Infra = single predestinarians

Thanks!
So group 1 hold God directly elects both saved/damned?
God directly caused sin/fall etc?
Group 2 says God JUST elected saved/damned go thru by free choice?
God did no cause sin/fall, allowed them to happen?

 

[Winman]

just saying that if you take what you wrote here to its "logical conclusion"...

If it is heretical to believe we are born without a sin nature with the "possibility" of keeping God's laws, isn't it just as heretical to believe Adam and Eve were created without a sin nature and the "possibility" of keeping God's laws?

I mean, what is the difference, someone please explain!

And wouldn't this make God partial and unfair? He gave a great advantage to Adam and Eve that he does not offer us?

It all comes down to justice. Could God be just in commanding us to keep his laws, and then threatening us with eternal damnation if we fail to keep them if we did not have the ability to keep them?

That said, the scriptures are very clear that no man keeps the law. But it is only because we are able that we can justly be held accountable.

I think that most here would agree that a little baby or small child is not held accountable when they sin, because they have no knowledge between good and evil. When they do get older and understand the difference they are held accountable.

Is man more just than God? If we do not hold babies and small children accountable for what they cannot do, would God be just to hold us accountable for what we cannot do?

I know many will disagree with me, but I do not believe it would be just for God to require from us what we cannot do.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Are we writing a term paper?:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Winman]

If it is going off topic it is because I am answering JFs questions.

 

[TomVols]

It does not follow, that if one holds to all 5 points of Calvinism, one is thus a Hyper-Calvinist. That is fallacy.

It would be equally fallacious to say that all who hold to an Arminian system are universalists and/or deists. Some, in their reasonings, end up there (a surprising number on here do that) but a few around here and many in other places do not take it to this extreme.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It does not follow, that if one holds to all 5 points of Calvinism, one is thus a Hyper-Calvinist. That is fallacy.

It would be equally fallacious to say that all who hold to an Arminian system are universalists and/or deists. Some, in their reasonings, end up there (a surprising number on here do that) but a few around here and many in other places do not take it to this extreme.

Thanks for stepping in Tom. These Calvinist Q&A sessions are getting a little obtuse (My own opinion):thumbsup:

 

[David Lamb]

But is it true then that all "true" calvinists who believe in all 5 points of TULIP would "have " to be Hyper Cals?

No, certainly not! Hypercalvinist beliefs go far beyond the beliefs of historical Calvinism. Here is a brief definition by Peter Toon I found quoted on the web at this link (emphasis mine):

1. [Hyper-Calvinism] is a system of theology framed to exalt the honour and glory of God and does so by acutely minimizing the moral and spiritual responsibility of sinners . . . It emphasizes irresistible grace to such an extent that there appears to be no real need to evangelize; furthermore, Christ may be offered only to the elect….
​

2. It is that school of supralapsarian ‘five-point’ Calvinism [n.b.—a school of supralapsarianism, not supralapsarianism in general] which so stresses the sovereignty of God by over-emphasizing the secret over the revealed will of God and eternity over time, that it minimizes the responsibility of sinners, notably with respect to the denial of the use of the word “offer” in relation to the preaching of the gospel; thus it undermines the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly in the Lord Jesus with the assurance that Christ actually died for them; and it encourages introspection in the search to know whether or not one is elect.
​

I don't know Peter Toon, but that quote seems to show that someone may fully believe in the "five points" without being a hypercalvinist.