Monergism/Synergism

[JonC]

Arminism is just another off shoot of Calvernism . It shares the same view of the T in ( TULIP) The work around is previenient grace . Found no where in the bible.

It is. And it has amazed me that so many do not see this.

Armianism WAS Calvinism (and it was within orthodox Calvinism) until the second time it was evaluated by the Synod of Dort.

Arminianism ASSUMES everything that Calvinism assumes except when it comes to soteriological differences.

Very good observation. I can see I'm going to like you, Barry (until we talk about my beliefs, anyway ).

 

[Barry Johnson]

Do you believe you deserve partial credit for your salvation? It's a very simple question.

No eph 2 makes clear that no one will boast . Salvation is the free gift in ephesians 2 ,8and 9 .
rom 5.2 tells us how we access the grace in Ephesians 2 ,8and 9
By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
1 cor 1.21 tells us how God has chosen the plan of ephesians 2 . 8and 9 .
21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
eph 1 tells us the order in which eph 2 ..8and 9 happens .
13¶In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
There's nothing about calvernism or Arminism that is necessary to mess with those verses ..The T in Tulip is bogus as are the rest of the ULIP . Arminism and Calvernism are not needed . The bible is just fine on its own .

 

[Calminian]

No eph 2 makes clear that no one will boast . Salvation is the free gift in ephesians 2 ,8and 9 .
rom 5.2 tells us how we access the grace in Ephesians 2 ,8and 9
By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
1 cor 1.21 tells us how God has chosen the plan of ephesians 2 . 8and 9 .
21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
eph 1 tells us the order in which eph 2 ..8and 9 happens .
13¶In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
There's nothing about calvernism or Arminism that is necessary to mess with those verses ..The T in Tulip is bogus as are the rest of the ULIP . Arminism and Calvernism are not needed . The bible is just fine on its own .

I get it you're not going to boast. My question is, do you believe you get partial credit for your salvation? It's a simple yes or no answer. I'm not trying to trick you.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't know. A few are Calvinism, Arminianism, Amyraldianism, Pelaganism, Wesleyan Arminianism, Orthodox views, Roman Catholic views, the Anabaptistic position (which is very close to Armianism).

I guess there are many ways people view the process of God saving us. There would have been less if Scripture was a bit more specific. But hey, then we would not be having all this fun.

All of those fall under either its all of God, or we co operate in the process to have Him be able to save us!

 

[Yeshua1]

Ephesians 2 ,8and 9 is crystal clear that salvation is a free gift . And in 1 cor 1 .21 its clear how God has chosen to save .
21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

How can those incapable to believe in Jesus then turn and believe in Him?

 

[Yeshua1]

It is. And it has amazed me that so many do not see this.

Armianism WAS Calvinism (and it was within orthodox Calvinism) until the second time it was evaluated by the Synod of Dort.

Arminianism ASSUMES everything that Calvinism assumes except when it comes to soteriological differences.

Very good observation. I can see I'm going to like you, Barry (until we talk about my beliefs, anyway ).

Never was seen as being within the framework of Calvinism proper!

 

[Barry Johnson]

How can those incapable to believe in Jesus then turn and believe in Him?

there you go ..thats the assumption. thats the poison you have swallowed ..No where does the bible say this .

 

[JonC]

Never was seen as being within the framework of Calvinism proper!

Arminianism? Yes, it was seen as being within the framework of Calvinism. Arminius argued the position and the first counsel deemed it a difficult position but one within orthodox Calvinism. During Arminius' lifetime his view was within orthodox Calvinism and he died a Calvinist. It was not until the Synod of Dort that it was deemed to be outside of Calvinism.

 

[JonC]

All of those fall under either its all of God, or we co operate in the process to have Him be able to save us!

No, that is not true. I think you would do better to learn of other positions.

 

[Calminian]

It is. And it has amazed me that so many do not see this.

Armianism WAS Calvinism (and it was within orthodox Calvinism) until the second time it was evaluated by the Synod of Dort.

Arminianism ASSUMES everything that Calvinism assumes except when it comes to soteriological differences.

Very good observation. I can see I'm going to like you, Barry (until we talk about my beliefs, anyway ).

Arminianism is a reformed protestant theology, as is calvinism. It's true Dort finalized calvinism as it exists today, and some argue Calvin wouldn't be totally onboard. There are other views like pelagianism and semipelagianism and the others you mentioned.

But I think Y1 also has a point. Calvinism does stand alone in making faith deterministic apart from free will. And some calvinists make Adam's fall deterministic (something I see as problematic).

 

[JonC]

Arminianism is a reformed protestant theology, as is calvinism. It's true Dort finalized calvinism as it exists today, and some argue Calvin wouldn't be totally onboard. There are other views like pelagianism and semipelagianism and the others you mentioned.

But I think Y1 also has a point. Calvinism does stand alone in making salvation deterministic apart from free will. And some calvinists make Adam's fall deterministic (something I see as problematic).

He has a point in that the two are not the same. BUT there was a time when Calvinism included Arminianism (when a counsel reviewed the doctrine and concluded it was within orthodox Calvinism). That's where I'd disagree with Y1.

But today it is not within Calvinism. It is of a Calvinist trajectory (and it holds many of the same basic presuppositions). But it departs. The same is true of Open Theism (Open Theism is to Arminianism what Arminianism is to Calvinism).

Personally I view God's will as different from man's will (I'd be a type of compatiblist, I suppose). Man's will functions beneath God's will.

 

[Calminian]

He has a point in that the two are not the same. BUT there was a time when Calvinism included Arminianism (when a counsel reviewed the doctrine and concluded it was within orthodox Calvinism). That's where I'd disagree with Y1.

But today it is not within Calvinism. It is of a Calvinist trajectory (and it holds many of the same basic presuppositions). But it departs. The same is true of Open Theism (Open Theism is to Arminianism what Arminianism is to Calvinism).

Personally I view God's will as different from man's will (I'd be a type of compatiblist, I suppose). Man's will functions beneath God's will.

Not to belabor this, I think your point is fair, but wouldn't it be considered the case that Dort simply went back and found insurmountable inconsistencies with the Arminian points and Calvin's theology? They were, at the very least, extremely successful in swaying Calvin's followers away from Arminius.

I do agree, that Arminius died with no idea of the controversy that followed.

 

[Yeshua1]

there you go ..thats the assumption. thats the poison you have swallowed ..No where does the bible say this .

Original Sin!

 

[Yeshua1]

Arminianism? Yes, it was seen as being within the framework of Calvinism. Arminius argued the position and the first counsel deemed it a difficult position but one within orthodox Calvinism. During Arminius' lifetime his view was within orthodox Calvinism and he died a Calvinist. It was not until the Synod of Dort that it was deemed to be outside of Calvinism.

I know of no Calvinist theologian that I have read in Systematic Theology that agrees with you here!

 

[Yeshua1]

No, that is not true. I think you would do better to learn of other positions.

Look at each one you mentioned, as most of therm have us assisting God by co operating with sacraments for example!

 

[Yeshua1]

Arminianism is a reformed protestant theology, as is calvinism. It's true Dort finalized calvinism as it exists today, and some argue Calvin wouldn't be totally onboard. There are other views like pelagianism and semipelagianism and the others you mentioned.

But I think Y1 also has a point. Calvinism does stand alone in making faith deterministic apart from free will. And some calvinists make Adam's fall deterministic (something I see as problematic).

Calvinists would see us as being totally affected by the fall, and that spiritual dead sinners can do nothing apart from the Grace of God!

 

[Yeshua1]

Not to belabor this, I think your point is fair, but wouldn't it be considered the case that Dort simply went back and found insurmountable inconsistencies with the Arminian points and Calvin's theology? They were, at the very least, extremely successful in swaying Calvin's followers away from Arminius.

I do agree, that Arminius died with no idea of the controversy that followed.

Would you say that once Calvinism was properly defined, that is when the clean break happened?

 

[JonC]

Not to belabor this, I think your point is fair, but wouldn't it be considered the case that Dort simply went back and found insurmountable inconsistencies with the Arminian points and Calvin's theology? They were, at the very least, extremely successful in swaying Calvin's followers away from Arminius.

I do agree, that Arminius died with no idea of the controversy that followed.

Yea, it was a debate within Calvinism. I think what we see is as more strict movement prevailing. Even at the Synod of Dort there were some argued against Limited Atonement (depending on how it was defined). And for most of the history of Calvinism we see one group calling another "hyper".

Calvinism, of course, is not alone in terms of internal divisions. I suppose all have disagreements with their groups (unless they are a cult, perhaps) because we all see things a bit different.

Some of us are just a little more...... unique...than others.

 

[Calminian]

Would you say that once Calvinism was properly defined, that is when the clean break happened?

I would think so, yes.

 

[Barry Johnson]

Original Sin!

Thats not a bible verse is it ?