Is there a retitle suggestion for Calvinism and Arminianism

[agedman]

I have liked the term fundamental baptist bible believer for years.

Then along came the sorry "fundamentalist" of all religions (especially the IFB-ers) and perverted the term (or maybe the media did) into an autocratic system of extreme prejudice against anybody who doesn't think and believe like me.

I started to consider myself a "biblicist" but found that term was far too broad and inclusive of folks that I held in doctrinal error.

Calvinist have the problem of Calvin - the historical Calvin was a man who most of us wouldn't particularly get along with, yet the systematic theology has few weaknesses.

Arminianist have a problem of Jocobe Arminian - a student of Calvin and died before he could coalesce his stand leaving it up to the Remonstrants to do. I doubt the modern folks would get along well with this group either.

Point being that the titles come with presupposed baggage.

Does anyone know of other terms that would hold to a solidly fundamental, historically Baptist (1689 - modified by Spurgeon) statement of faith, in which a person could easily be identified?

 

[Benjamin]

Point being that the titles come with presupposed baggage.

Does anyone know of other terms that would hold to a solidly fundamental, historically Baptist (1689 - modified by Spurgeon) statement of faith, in which a person could easily be identified?

How about being called the Holders of the "Doctrines of Deterministic Pre-selected Grace" ?

 

[Van]

The problem with Calvinism is not the baggage of John Calvin and the problem with Arminianism is not the baggage of Jacob Arminius. The problem with the doctrines is they do not stand up to biblical study.

Total Spiritual Inability is a fiction, limited spiritual ability of men of flesh is what scripture teaches.

Unconditional Election is a fiction, Election conditioned upon faith in the truth is what scripture teaches.

Loss of salvation is a fiction, once a person is actually saved, they are saved forever according to scripture.

 

[Amy.G]

Christian?


:smilewinkgrin:

 

[plain_n_simple]

The problem with Calvinism is not the baggage of John Calvin and the problem with Arminianism is not the baggage of Jacob Arminius. The problem with the doctrines is they do not stand up to biblical study.

Total Spiritual Inability is a fiction, limited spiritual ability of men of flesh is what scripture teaches.

Unconditional Election is a fiction, Election conditioned upon faith in the truth is what scripture teaches.

Loss of salvation is a fiction, once a person is actually saved, they are saved forever according to scripture.

:thumbs:

Call it "The Christian Fiction of the Holders of the Doctrines of Deterministic Pre-selected Grace" or CFHDDPSG
:applause::applause::applause:

 

[agedman]

The problem with Calvinism is not the baggage of John Calvin and the problem with Arminianism is not the baggage of Jacob Arminius. The problem with the doctrines is they do not stand up to biblical study.

I would agree. Both doctrines are needing continual review and reflection as the Scriptures give light to the believer. Some may hold onto one more than another, but to be ignorant of either or hold to one in exclusion of being knowledgeable of the other is problematic.

Total Spiritual Inability is a fiction, limited spiritual ability of men of flesh is what scripture teaches.

Perhaps, given that all men have the 10 commandments imprinted upon them, and the evidence of nature. It is true, too, that all cultures have erected gods in which they worship. So within those frameworks there is a limited spiritual ability. However, personally, I hold that that ability does not extend to recognition of Christ as Savior without the direct and purposed intervention of God.

Unconditional Election is a fiction, Election conditioned upon faith in the truth is what scripture teaches.

Perhaps, if one considers that man can generate a certain "hope so" attitude - which is what some do. But, is that the faith in which the Scriptures would view as the "gift" of God "measured to each believer?" Psalm 85 says that mercy and truth have met and righteousness and peace have kissed. It seems that all mercy, truth, righteousness, and peace are bound up in God, delivered by God, upon the faith God has measured out and given to the believer.

Loss of salvation is a fiction, once a person is actually saved, they are saved forever according to scripture.

This is true and not to be ashamed to teach. Unfortunately, it is a most weak part of the Arminian view, and perhaps why some would attempt to blend the holdings of the Arminian thinking more closely with a modified Calvinistic thinking. Those who have made the attempt have failed (in my opinion), but the world is not over.


I would add another problem both views have, and that is a basic lack of trust that one is "saved" (or has an appropriate relationship with God) when in the grip of the opposing view. I have met some high strung folks who blast away at one view while going to seed on the other and proclaim condemnation on any and all who don't agree with them.

There are many theologians who I may discern are of one view or the other in which I can garner insight, understanding, and agreement. It is always best to look for truth, even when in the pig pen. One never knows when a pearl might emerge.

 

[Benjamin]

Loss of salvation is a fiction, once a person is actually saved, they are saved forever according to scripture.

You seem to be suggesting "loss of salvation" is the norm of what the Arminians teach:


Article 5.

[Assurance and Security - corresponds to the fifth of TULIP’s five points, Perseverance of the Saints]

That those who are incorporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, as a result have full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no deceit or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of neglecting grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full confidence of our mind.

 

[Jerome]

a TULIP By any other name would smell. . .

 

[agedman]

:thumbs:

Call it "The Christian Fiction of the Holders of the Doctrines of Deterministic Pre-selected Grace" or CFHDDPSG
:applause::applause::applause:

So, I would take from your statement that you are in full agreement with the Arminian thinking?

Would that not lead you to embrace the view that if one has freedom of choice, then it follows that in all matters of faith and practice they may choose what to accept and what to reject?

Would you agree with the typical Nazarene or Church of God/pentecostal folks who consider one may choose to be saved and then choose to be lost, and then choose to be saved to later choose to be lost...

Would you agree that "chosen in him before the foundations of the world" is not included in the scriptures, or that "whom he did foreknow he predestinated to be conformed to the image of his son..." needs erased?

Your post would indicate that you mock the teaching of election and predestination that the Scriptures clearly teach.

Perhaps you are like a famous evangelist now long dead that told me that salvation is like going through a gate. On one side is a sign that says, "whosoever will" but on the other side it is displayed, "chosen in him..."

I disagree with such attempts of these pretzel bending gymnastic views.

 

[glfredrick]

Christian?


:smilewinkgrin:

Works for me... :applause:

 

[agedman]

You seem to be suggesting "loss of salvation" is the norm of what the Arminians teach:


Article 5.

[Assurance and Security - corresponds to the fifth of TULIP’s five points, Perseverance of the Saints]

But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of neglecting grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full confidence of our mind.

Ok, so the Remonstrant group hadn't decided on whether or not to be given over to the extent that the Nazarene and Church of God / pentecostal and such believe.

However, it seems that although they acknowledge that the Christ holds all that are saved and "none can pluck them out of His hand." They are in conflict with the total security of the believer.

What do they then hold of Paul's statement in Romans? "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

 

[Jerome]

How about Gomarist?

Dictionary of Religion, p. 476:

Gomarists or Anti-Remonstrants. —The opponents of the Arminians. They take their name from their leader, Francis Gomar, who was born at Bruges in 1563. He commenced his studies at Strasburg and Heidelberg, and in 1582 came to England, and went first to Oxford and then to Cambridge, where he took his B. D. in 1581. In 1594 he was elected Professor of Divinity at Leyden, and he is chiefly known for his violent opposition to the doctrines of his colleague Arminius. He was present at the Synod of Doit, in 1618, and was the main instrument in getting the Arminians expelled from the Reformed Church.

 

[Tom Butler]

I still like DoG (for Doctrines of Grace).

Of course, some who see Calvinism as heresy may want to label us as a Dirty DoG!

Or Junkyard DoG.

 

[drfuss]

Ok, so the Remonstrant group hadn't decided on whether or not to be given over to the extent that the Nazarene and Church of God / pentecostal and such believe.

However, it seems that although they acknowledge that the Christ holds all that are saved and "none can pluck them out of His hand." They are in conflict with the total security of the believer.

What do they then hold of Paul's statement in Romans? "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

There are many Arminians beliefs. Unfortunately, many Calvinists lump them all together.

Classic Arminians - Those who believe a True Christian can forfeit (but not lose) their salvation. There are variations within this group such as the FreeWill Baptist who believe that you can only forfeit your salvation once, the others believe God will take you back anytime you repent. The Remonstrant group would be considered Classic Arminians.

Wesleyan Arminians - Those who believe a True Christian can also lose their salvation by long time resisting the conviction of the Holy Spirit from known sins in their lives. Their are variations within this group.

Holiness Christians (Sometimes called Wesleyan Arminians) - Those who put great emphasis on living a santified life to the extent that they are the Arminians not sure of their continued salvation. The Penetecostal Holiness church denomination and the Nazarenes both believe in a second work of grace and some could be examples in this group.

The Classic Arminians and the Wesleyan Arminians are just as sure of their salvation as are eternal security believers that believe that they are sure that they are True Christians.

 

[drfuss]

I still like DoG (for Doctrines of Grace).

Of course, some who see Calvinism as heresy may want to label us as a Dirty DoG!

Or Junkyard DoG.

Then perhaps the Non-Calvinist should say that they believe in The Doctrines of Mercy. How about The Doctrines of Love?

 

[Benjamin]

I still like DoG (for Doctrines of Grace).

The problem with that is it kind of masquerades your view while trying to claim a monopoly on the word “grace”, you guys need to get out there in the open with what you are actually preaching, I think the “Doctrines of Deterministic Pre-selected Grace” is a much more honest approach.

 

[quantumfaith]

Christian?


:smilewinkgrin:

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[quantumfaith]

There are many Arminians beliefs. Unfortunately, many Calvinists lump them all together.

Classic Arminians - Those who believe a True Christian can forfeit (but not lose) their salvation. There are variations within this group such as the FreeWill Baptist who believe that you can only forfeit your salvation once, the others believe God will take you back anytime you repent. The Remonstrant group would be considered Classic Arminians.

Wesleyan Arminians - Those who believe a True Christian can also lose their salvation by long time resisting the conviction of the Holy Spirit from known sins in their lives. Their are variations within this group.

Holiness Christians (Sometimes called Wesleyan Arminians) - Those who put great emphasis on living a santified life to the extent that they are the Arminians not sure of their continued salvation. The Penetecostal Holiness church denomination and the Nazarenes both believe in a second work of grace and some could be examples in this group.

The Classic Arminians and the Wesleyan Arminians are just as sure of their salvation as are eternal security believers that believe that they are sure that they are True Christians.

Great post.

 

[quantumfaith]

Then perhaps the Non-Calvinist should say that they believe in The Doctrines of Mercy. How about The Doctrines of Love?

Works for me. Labels don't really bother me all that much, except those rather "rare" times when it is clearly obvious attempts at being pejorative toward another.

 

[Thousand Hills]

For Cals - IAAM's (It Ain't About Me)?

For Non Cals - Burger King Theology? (Have It Your Way!!! ie pick and choose)