If you are not Reformed, you cannot believe in eternal security

Hmmmmm. That response begs the question. Do you drink?

 

My point is that I could reject all five points and still not hold to Arminianism.

 

If you reject all 5 points you are a 5 point Arminian.

 

I think the problem is that he is looking at Arminianism within his own theological structure. They cannot have the same basis, perhaps, as he has for the doctrine of eternal security if his is based on doctrine what they reject. But that does not mean they do not have reasons of their own.

(I do not hold to Arminianism, so I'm not answering for them but his statement is just not correct).

 

I beg to differ. I do not consider myself to be Reformed. Yet I do hold to the security of the Believer in Christ. IOW, I do not believe a person can "loose his\her salvation". This as "salvation" has many aspects among which are

1. Redemption - A Saved Person is bought by a price, the precious Blood of Christ. As such, there is no "Return Window" for God to get the redemption price back.
2. Adoption - We are formally made joint heirs.
3. Regeneration - We gained His Spiritual genetics. This from the Greek word used in 1 John 2:1 τεκνια. Which can be translated "my little-born ones." As with # 2, there is no formal place for disinheriting. Further, a disobedient son is still a child of his father.

 

If so, then both Calvinism and Arminianism do not exist beyond those five simple points.

I think we are talking about different things....Mostly because I affirm all five points but don't consider myself a Calvinist . (I know...it doesn't matter what I "consider myself").

The issue is that a man reject all five points of Calvinism AND all of the articles of the Remonstrants. What then? One side calls them a Calvinist and the other an Arminian?

Does one's understanding of the points make a difference (e.g., Calvinism seems to look at the Atonement through Penal Substitution, with Christ being punished for us individually and that applied at the cross. Luther did not hold this view. Was Martin Luther a Calvinist?).

 

I affirm all five point and do not self-identify as a "Calvinist" for several reasons, none of which have anything to do with the 5 points.

Unbeliever?

 

Do you think that how these points are defined have a bearing as well? Suppose I affirm all five points of Calvinism but I reject Penal Substitution. Would my definition (or application?) of the points depart from Calvinism itself?

Martin Luther, for example, taught that the Atonement was a payment and satisfaction made to “remit the punishment and wrath” of God towards man. Jesus took our place, assumed our sins, and answered for mankind as if He were guilty of our sin. Jesus’ righteousness “outweighed all sin and wrath he was compelled to bear on our account” and his “merit is so great that God is not satisfied.” (Luther, Sermons vol. 2, p. 334).

At first glance this fits within how Calvinism is often explained. Jesus took upon Himself the punishment of those who are saved, thereby atoning for their sins. But this is not at all what Luther taught. His position was substitution, but it was not penal in the sense that it consisted of the punishments of the elect inflicted on the Son.

This may be a minor difference (but I don’t think so). But it is a difference between Calvin and Luther. And it does present a difference in how the “scope of the atonement” is defined. Was Martin Luther a Calvinist?

 

I don't know. I am not talking about Calvinism. I am talking about the 5 points (heads of doctrine) of Particular Redemption.

What Calvin believed is irrelevant to me. What Luther believed is irrelevant to me. What the bible teaches is all that is relevant to me and John 6 makes the 5 points very, very clear.

 

My dad, an Irishman, used to say he only drank to protect himself from snake bite. My mother reminded him there were no snakes in Ireland. He replied, "See! It works!"

 

You once told me that words had specific meanings, and I’m just trying to narrow this down. I think we are working off different definitions. Still, it doesn't make sense to me that to reject the five points is to accept the five articles (because many here have rejected both).

Here is my thought process....step in my head for a minute...watch you step and don't touch anything... you don't know where it's been :

1. Calvinism was never the only, or even necessarily always the predominant, theological position. During John Calvin’s time it existed alongside other Reformed positions as well as “Anabaptist” positions.

2. James Arminius disputed predestination. This grew into Arminianism. The five points of Calvinism were a rebuttal of the articles of the Remonstrance.

3. Calvinism, and Arminianism (which is of Calvinistic trajectory) combined do not incorporate all of Christianity because Calvinism did not, prior to Arminianism, incorporate all of Christianity.

4. Not everyone belongs to either Calvinism or Arminianism. A rejection of the articles does not make one a Calvinist, and a rejection of the five points doesn’t make one Arminian.


Here is another example. Arminianism holds man is “in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good, such as saving faith eminently is; but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good” (Article 3). Regenerate man himself, “without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptation to evil.” (Article 4).

These articles define Arminianism as distinctive from Calvinism (assuming the rest of Calvinistic doctrine). But they do define Arminianism. If I do not believe two points that define a thing, then I don’t believe the thing. If I do not accept those two points then I reject Arminianism.

If I believe that man has the power to turn to God, unassisted, then I’ve rejected Arminianism. I believe that I would also have rejected Calvinism.