Someone please explain the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism?

[James_Newman]

Thats the calvinist view. I can't not work because I am saved. If I didn't work, I might not really be saved. But thankfully, I have some works to show that I really am saved.

 

[alley]

Originally posted by James_Newman:
I know the difference. Arminians believe that you have to work to stay saved, and Calvinists believe that if your saved, you have to work.

I sense a lot of sarcasm in this post.
I will clarify anyways. Arminians and work=Wesleyan Arminian, Not REFORMED examples of Wesleyan Arminian, Most Methodist, Church of Christ.

Example of Reformed are General Baptist, Free Will Baptist.

BIG BIG difference.

I have never heard a Moderate Calvinist say they didn't have to work. I have heard Classic Calvinist mention really they don't have to work, because everything is predetermined, but the reason they do work, is gain reward in Heaven.

You need to realize you cannot label them altogether

 

[genesis12]

Yes, it makes sense, Lisa. If we rightly divide scripture, we avoid these endless labels.

 

[lgpruitt]

Well, I sat and enjoyed the message in the baptist church I attend and member of today. While sitting there I have to admit I was wondering all the things all of us had chatted about this week. Good conversation...debate...and learning process for me. I appreciate all the feedback.

 

[genesis12]

[My humble apologies. Please don't get so uptight just because we disagree on something] /QUOTE]

If I had been uptight the little happy face would not have appeared with my post.

 

[Andy T.]

Originally posted by EdSutton:
lgpruitt, I wish I could explain something where it is the "same difference" as to the systems. Both are man-made, and both ultimately stand or fall on the issue of "perseverance", by their own definition. I believe it was webdog who classified himself as of "free grace" persuasion. As do I, although I would say that "free grace" is redundant. That is the Biblical position, IMO, as well.

This argument is a red herring. Calvinism, Arminianism and anything inbetween are all interpretations of Scripture. In that sense, they are all "man-made". The free-grace position is just as "man-made" as any other system. The free-grace position has its systematic theologies, its seminaries, its teachers, professors and books. Just because it does not have some dead guy's name attached to it does not make it above the fray from the others.

Basically what he has said here is that all other interpretations of Scripture are man-made, but my interpretation is the Biblical position. Of course, deep down we all think this, otherwise, we would adopt another interpretation. But to call other interpretations "man-made" is simply a red herring to make the other side look bad. We all have a system of interpretation. In that respect, we're all in this together - don't try to put yourself above the fray from the rest of us.

 

[Andy T.]

Originally posted by James_Newman:
I know the difference. Arminians believe that you have to work to stay saved, and Calvinists believe that if your saved, you have to work.

No, the Calvinist says that if you are saved, your salvation will evidence itself in good works, ala Eph. 2:10. Saying that you "have to work" is misrepresentation that attempts to make Calvinism hold to works-based salvation, which it obviously does not.

 

[lgpruitt]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by EdSutton:
lgpruitt, I wish I could explain something where it is the "same difference" as to the systems. Both are man-made, and both ultimately stand or fall on the issue of "perseverance", by their own definition. I believe it was webdog who classified himself as of "free grace" persuasion. As do I, although I would say that "free grace" is redundant. That is the Biblical position, IMO, as well.

This argument is a red herring. Calvinism, Arminianism and anything inbetween are all interpretations of Scripture. In that sense, they are all "man-made". The free-grace position is just as "man-made" as any other system. The free-grace position has its systematic theologies, its seminaries, its teachers, professors and books. Just because it does not have some dead guy's name attached to it does not make it above the fray from the others.

Basically what he has said here is that all other interpretations of Scripture are man-made, but my interpretation is the Biblical position. Of course, deep down we all think this, otherwise, we would adopt another interpretation. But to call other interpretations "man-made" is simply a red herring to make the other side look bad. We all have a system of interpretation. In that respect, we're all in this together - don't try to put yourself above the fray from the rest of us. </font>[/QUOTE]True. Man has interpreted the bible himself over the centuries. Thus, the many divisions of Christianity. I try my best to allow the bible to speak to me and direct me in what I should take from it as correct.(and from my current and former preachers) But, I welcome anyone that has other interpretations that make me 'think'. A quiet, listening heart had guided me through and to my beliefs. We are all different and yet the same since we are Christians.
Good morning!