Has anyone else ever just been unsure about Calvinism and Arminianism?

[StefanM]

I don't intend for this to be a discussion of the merits of each side but rather the experience of weighing them.

At times in my life I've waffled between Calvinism in some form and Arminianism in some form.

Right now, I just don't know. I can see both ways, but I'm just not sure which is correct because I see both perspectives in the Bible. I know they can't both be true, but I'm wondering if anyone else has been in this state for very long.

 

[Revmitchell]

I have not waffled. I have always been against both.

 

[StefanM]

I have not waffled. I have always been against both.

Do you tend more toward one side or the other?

 

[Revmitchell]

Do you tend more toward one side or the other?

No, the reason is I find doctrinal stances labeled after men repulsive and unscriptural. Paul made that clear. I reject the TULIP and the reformed definition of election. There is a clear distinction between Israel and the church. The HG did not come until Pentecost. I hold to the security of the believer but likely not for the same reason reformed folks do.

 

[kyredneck]

There is a clear distinction between Israel and the church.

No, there is a clear distinction between Israel and Israel:

6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel: Ro 9

 

[SovereignGrace]

No, there is a clear distinction between Israel and Israel:

6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel: Ro 9

^^^^^What he said^^^^^

 

[StefanM]

Anyone else?

And, for the record, include on the Arminian side those who believe everything except for the loss of salvation. Include on the Calvinist side those with a Calvinistic view of election, even if all 5 points are not believed.

 

[Revmitchell]

Anyone else?

And, for the record, include on the Arminian side those who believe everything except for the loss of salvation.

then they are not arminian

 

[StefanM]

then they are not arminian

Even the original Remonstrants weren't sure about it, so I think it's reasonable to say they are at least close to the Arminian side

 

[Revmitchell]

Even the original Remonstrants weren't sure about it, so I think it's reasonable to say they are at least close to the Arminian side

The problem is that the opposite of Calvinsim is not Amrinianism. It is not simply two choices.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Even the original Remonstrants weren't sure about it, so I think it's reasonable to say they are at least close to the Arminian side

But most 5 point Arminian held to the possibility of loss of salvation, iirc.

 

[StefanM]

But most 5 point Arminian held to the possibility of loss of salvation, iirc.

After the first round, yes. When you get to Wesleyan Arminianism, it's definitely the case.

But a lot of Baptists are the equivalent of 4-point Arminians. They just arrived there by a separate slide away from Calvinism instead of the original Remonstrants. That's why eternal security (a modification of the Calvinist concept of perseverance) was retained. It's really almost more of a parallel to Arminianism than anything.

 

[Salty]

FWIW - we used to have someone on BB who believed in (6) of the five points of Calvinism.

and now back to the C vs A argument. .

 

[StefanM]

FWIW - we used to have someone on BB who believed in (6) of the five points of Calvinism.

and now back to the C vs A argument. .

Double-predestination?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I reject both systems as extreme.

I reject Calvinisms Irresistable Grace, Unconditional Election, and Limited Atonement.

I also reject the Arminian doctrines of conditional security and second blessing/sinless perfectionism.

I believe that Christ died for all men, wants all men to be saved, and that even though we are all wicked and depraved, I believe he gives all men sufficient grace to be able to repent if they choose so. I believe the Calvinist system if taken to its logical conclusion destroys mans responsibility, and makes God the author of sin. Calvinists will deny this harshly but it's just the truth.

 

[StefanM]

I reject both systems as extreme.

I reject Calvinisms Irresistable Grace, Unconditional Election, and Limited Atonement.

I also reject the Arminian doctrines of conditional security and second blessing/sinless perfectionism.

I believe that Christ died for all men, wants all men to be saved, and that even though we are all wicked and depraved, I believe he gives all men sufficient grace to be able to repent if they choose so. I believe the Calvinist system if taken to its logical conclusion destroys mans responsibility, and makes God the author of sin. Calvinists will deny this harshly but it's just the truth.

To be fair, "second blessing/sinless perfectionism" is a Wesleyan concept or an outgrowth of the original Wesleyan concept (depending on the specifics). FWIW, I believe Wesley himself used the term "Christian perfection" (close to a concept of being "fully surrendered") instead of sinless perfection. It was later developed into something a bit more extreme. Classical Arminianism wouldn't hold to any of this.

 

[Salty]

Double-predestination?

I forgot how he explained it.
Does anyone else remember that poster?

 

[StefanM]

I forgot how he explained it.
Does anyone else remember that poster?

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-does-piper-mean-when-he-says-hes-a-seven-point-calvinist

John Piper (semi-seriously) refers to double-predestination and "best of all possible worlds" as two additional points. My bet is double-predestination.

 

[Tendor]

I don't intend for this to be a discussion of the merits of each side but rather the experience of weighing them.

At times in my life I've waffled between Calvinism in some form and Arminianism in some form.

Right now, I just don't know. I can see both ways, but I'm just not sure which is correct because I see both perspectives in the Bible. I know they can't both be true, but I'm wondering if anyone else has been in this state for very long.

I can't say that I have every doubted my Calvinistic stance. Even before I was a Christian I saw that scripture pointed to God's sovereignty through election.

 

[blessedwife318]

My story is one of being raised Wesylan, going to a free will Bible College and coming out Reformed. So you could say that I have run the whole gauntlet, but since coming to a reformed view, I have not doubted it. Even while I was taught against it, I could not help but notice that Bible supports reformed theology.