Dont box me in as a C or an A

[Salty]

I have heard people say they don't want to be ID as a C or an A.

Why is that?

I contend it is because many feel it is too hard of a doctrine to understand.
and they really do not want to "waste" time on a doctrine that they think
is not that important or hard to comprehend.

So - why do think some don't want to be categorized as a C or A?


And Please - lets stay on OP!
Lets NOT defend or attack the C or A positions.

 

[kyredneck]

Dont box me in as a C or an A

...mugwump...

 

[1689Dave]

I have heard people say they don't want to be ID as a C or an A.

Why is that?

I contend it is because many feel it is too hard of a doctrine to understand.
and they really do not want to "waste" time on a doctrine that they think
is not that important or hard to comprehend.

So - why do think some don't want to be categorized as a C or A?


And Please - lets stay on OP!
Lets NOT defend or attack the C or A positions.

I call myself a Calvinist so people will know where I'm coming from. But I only believe the first three points of Dort are spot on. Like it or not, I can label you an Arminian, A Pelagian, a semi-Pelagian, or a Calvinist depending on your view of salvation, even if you cannot discern your own position. There are only three claims on how people are saved. Each fits one of these three categories. 1. God alone saves people. 2. God and people together save people, or 3. people save themselves unaided by God.

 

[JonC]

I have heard people say they don't want to be ID as a C or an A.

Why is that?

I contend it is because many feel it is too hard of a doctrine to understand.
and they really do not want to "waste" time on a doctrine that they think
is not that important or hard to comprehend.

So - why do think some don't want to be categorized as a C or A?


And Please - lets stay on OP!
Lets NOT defend or attack the C or A positions.

I don't want to be dropped into either category because I do not believe Arminianism or Calvinism to be correct.

But of the two I believe Calvinism is the easier to understand and defend.

 

[37818]

Why is that?

Because neither represents my view.

I do believe in "a" total depravity beginning at conception.

The election is conditional being without any merit on the part of the elect.

I am of the persuasion one cannot have an atonement securing the elects salvation without an unlimited atonement. Both have to be true.

God's grace, while can be found irresponsible, can be resisted.

God who solely does the saving also does the keeping. Or no one would be saved.

I believe sanctification precedes, faith, which precedes regeneration.

Because of unlimited atonement, everyone's name starts out in the book of life.

As I trust one can see my view is either C or A.

 

[1689Dave]

Like it or not, each person can be categorized in one of three positions. There are only three possibilities in how people are saved. 1. God alone saves people. 2. People help God to save themselves. 3. People alone save themselves. So you are one of the three but only one can be true.

 

[JonC]

Like it or not, each person can be categorized in one of three positions. There are only three possibilities in how people are saved. 1. God alone saves people. 2. People help God to save themselves. 3. People alone save themselves. So you are one of the three but only one can be true.

At one time I could have been categorized in one or another. Now I am neither. Even if we were to reduce Calvinism and Arminianism to those 3 "possibilities" (which I believe is fair to neither position) I am not sure there are none who would be in a different category.

 

[1689Dave]

At one time I could have been categorized in one or another. Now I am neither. Even if we were to reduce Calvinism and Arminianism to those 3 "possibilities" (which I believe is fair to neither position) I am not sure there are none who would be in a different category.

Everyone is one of the three. God alone saves. You and God save you. You save yourself.

 

[JonC]

Everyone is one of the three. God alone saves. You and God save you. You save yourself.

I guess so. I thought we were talking Calvinism vs Arminianism, which is why I responded as I did.

I agree that Classic Arminianism and Calvinism both hold that God alone saves, while some forms of Arminianism holds that men cooperates with God in salvation.

But I still think both Calvinism and Arminianism are wrong.

 

[1689Dave]

I guess so. I thought we were talking Calvinism vs Arminianism, which is why I responded as I did.

I agree that Arminianism and Calvinism both hold that God alone saves, while some forms of Arminianism holds that men cooperates with God in salvation.

But I still think both Calvinism and Arminianism are wrong.

I don't trust Calvin or Arminius. I can easily believe neither was saved. But Calvin and all the Reformers were Augustinians. And being a lawyer, Calvin accurately set Augustinianism into readable form. So I believe the first 3 of the 5 points at the synod of Dort are perfectly in line with scripture. The remaining 2 points need the Baptist effect to make them align.

 

[JonC]

I don't trust Calvin or Arminius. I can easily believe neither was saved. But Calvin and all the Reformers were Augustinians. And being a lawyer, Calvin accurately set Augustinianism into readable form. So I believe the first 3 of the 5 points at the synod of Dort are perfectly in line with scripture. The remaining 2 points need the Baptist effect to make them align.

I'd put Calvinism more on line with Beza. Calvin did not place divine sovereignty under soteriology. As we know it today, Because was at least as important as was Calvin.

I can work with the 5 points or the 5 articles. Doesn't matter much to me.

 

[1689Dave]

I'd put Calvinism more on line with Beza. Calvin did not place divine sovereignty under soteriology. As we know it today, Because was at least as important as was Calvin.

I can work with the 5 points or the 5 articles. Doesn't matter much to me.

The 3 points make more sense if you modify points 4 & 5. Where they make faith the means of salvation, the New Birth IS salvation and faith the evidence of it.

 

[JonC]

The 3 points make more sense if you modify points 4 & 5. Where they make faith the means of salvation, the New Birth IS salvation and faith the evidence of it.

Divorced from Calvinism I have no issues with all 5 points.

 

[1689Dave]

Divorced from Calvinism I have no issues with all 5 points.

It's complicated, but in a nutshell, Calvin probably taught universal atonement. So points 4 & 5 complement this. Dort taught Limited Atonement which I believe is true. So if you modify points 4 & 5 into the New Birth being the means of salvation instead of faith, they match up with Limited Atonement.

 

[Reynolds]

I have heard people say they don't want to be ID as a C or an A.

Why is that?

I contend it is because many feel it is too hard of a doctrine to understand.
and they really do not want to "waste" time on a doctrine that they think
is not that important or hard to comprehend.

So - why do think some don't want to be categorized as a C or A?


And Please - lets stay on OP!
Lets NOT defend or attack the C or A positions.

Because most Baptists are neither C nor A. They are a blend. 3 point usually. What is a 3 point Calvinist? You could just as easily call him a 3 point Arminian. (Baptist Arminianism holds to P)

 

[Revmitchell]

Because these labels are not the standard to judge our doctrine by, the Bible alone is. In 1 Corinthians Paul told the church to refrain from claiming to follow men (I.e. Calvinism, Arminianism etc) yes following doctrines named after men is following men in the same way Paul corrected. It causes division in the church. It’s sinful

 

[1689Dave]

Because most Baptists are neither C nor A. They are a blend. 3 point usually. What is a 3 point Calvinist? You could just as easily call him a 3 point Arminian. (Baptist Arminianism holds to P)

You would need to know what the 5 points say first. And then adjust the 4th and 5th points to fit Limited Atonement instead of universal atonement. Many think Calvin taught universal atonement and points 4 & 5 align with this. But the Synod of Dort more correctly taught Limited Atonement which I'm convinced is true to scripture.

 

[Reynolds]

You would need to know what the 5 points say first. And then adjust the 4th and 5th points to fit Limited Atonement instead of universal atonement. Many think Calvin taught universal atonement and points 4 & 5 align with this. But the Synod of Dort more correctly taught Limited Atonement which I'm convinced is true to scripture.

I know what they say. Do you?

 

[1689Dave]

I know what they say. Do you?

It's what they mean that counts.

 

[Scarlett O.]

I am neither because:

[1] I do not believe in double predestination. I do not believe that God was just joking around with Cain. I believe if Cain had heeded God's call, he would have been accepted as God said. Cain, in his free will and sin of anger, rejected God. I believe that I am saved as God called me, I heard the call, and I chose to repent and believe - of my own free will. God did the saving, but I had to shed my "self" and submit to him. Ergo, I cannot follow the Calvinist path.

[2] I do not believe that a Christian can lose their salvation. - call it OSAS or security of the believer - but the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is our "deposit" or "guarantee", that NOTHING "can separate us from the love of God, and that Jesus will "never cast us out". Ergo, I cannot follow the Arminian path.

It's just not rocket science. There ARE more than two options. What do I call myself? A Christian who, for now, attends a Southern Baptist church.