Someone please explain the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism?

I, too, am Reformed Arminian, and I second Alleys post.

JDale

 

alley and jdale, welcome to the BB.

I would be interested in understanding the "reformed arminian" view, as I have never heard of this before.

BTW, I would fall under the "Free Grace" position, if I have to put a theological label on myself.

 

Whew! By the time you read all that, igpruitt, you can start your own congregation. I notice in your credits that you write: "This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down His life for us." It's how WE know, and it's for US. That's pretty clear. I'm not TULIP or Arminian, and I'll see you in Heaven.

 

Jesus laid down His life for His sheep , who are His Church , His bride , His elect and many other sister terms . He did not die for those whose final destiny is Hell -- whose names are not written in the Lamb's Book of Life .

I too am curious about the term " Reformed Arminian " . Is that the same as a Biblicist , which is the equivalent of a semi-Pelagian ? It's hard to keep up with the ever-changing word games .

 

On one hand I am surprised the term Reformed Arminian has never been heard. Then again I am not surrprised at the same time. The term comes from Jacob Arimianeous (sp?) While many methodist believe in a work salvation (Weselyean Arminian) we do not

Some quick points that would we would have

1. Salavation is through faith by grace not of works

2. Man has a "free will" to choose to accept or reject Christ. There is no election

3. Christ died for all, and His desire is for all to be saved

4. Believe in the Virgin Birth

5. Believe in a literal resurection on the thrid day

6. We have been labeled several times as people who believe that can "Lose their Salavation". This is far from the truth. We believe in the Security of the Beliver. This is very different than Eternal Security. If man has Free Will to chose Christ, he also has Free Will to forfeit their salavation as well.

7. We do not believe in repeated regeneration at all.

This is very basic prinicples by which we go by. JDale is very well schooled in this. He can clarify and explain much better than I can. So I will let him pick up from here

(p.s. Not here looking for a debate, just fellowship)

 

It's strange. People tend to think that one is either a "Calvinist" or an "Arminian".

The whole "Arminianism" has is origins in the Dutch remonstrance, which occurred after the death of Arminius (whose real name was Jakob Harmensz). Arminius's followers challenged the prevailing referomed churches on several points, particularly limited atonement. Arminius and his followers believed that the atonement was "general" and that grace could thus be resisted. Arminius held that salvation could be lost, but only through complete wilfull apostasy. The "5 points of Calvinism" were set by the Synod of Dort (long after Calvin's death), in response to the Dutch remonstrance. The synod affirmed the positions of John calvin and rejected the potential reforms of Arminius' followers.

Today's "Arminianism" is not that of Arminius and has its roots in the theology of John Wesley, who considered his own theology to be "Arminian". Most nonreformed baptists today are probably pretty close to the position of Arminius, excpet for the issue of the potential loss of salvation.

 

Charles you are correct about how close we are except for the apostasy issue.

I am a Free Will Baptist Preacher. Some may know a little about FWB and some may not. I have talked with several SBC pastors who had no clue exactly what we believed and after clarifying what we believed, they ended up saying "I am not far from that, except the apostasy issue"

The aspostasy issue is what really seperates us, unless you are a SBC 5 Point Calvinist. Other than that, there isn't no difference.

Things that SBC preachers have told people what we believe (this is no joke)

1. Don't go to that church because they get extremely wild in their services

2. The believe in speaking in tounges

3. They are just like the Church of CHrist

4. They believe people can lose their salvation over and over

5. (This one came from a SBC lady not a pastor) Is it true you all handle snakes?

Those comments just make me laugh. My father-n-law is a SBC preacher. When I announced that I would be marrying his daughter he had a hard time with it. He started going to FWB churches to find a scoop on why his daughter should not marry me. He later told me, that he couldn't find any difference in the service and found the sermons to be very good.

I have even heard some of the SBC big guns say from the pulpit Arminians are right on this point (Heard that a couple of times at Dr.Jerry Vines pastor's conference)

I talked to this intelligant teenager. I was really impressed with him. We went down the line of salvation and found out that we agreed on everything and even part of the bottom line.

When it comes to the issue of apostasy, we say

1. Either that person really was never saved
2. They forfeited their salvation
3. They are in a deep backslidden state of salvation.
More than likely it is 1 and 3 instead of 2, but 2 does happen (in our belief)

He couldn't believe how similar we were except for point #2

 

you might also say that the Arminius - Calvin dispute began very early in church history in the confrontation between Augustine and Pelagius.... the story goes that Pelagius was disturbed when he read a prayer by Augustine that went something like

"Lord command what you will, and grant what you command"

Pelagius became very angry about this because he felt that God would not command what we did not have the power or ability to accomplish... sound familiar? Today's arguments between Calvinists and Arminians often revolve around that same debate... ability... that if God commands sinners everywhere to repent, then, so says the Arminian, he must then have the ability to repent.... otherwise God would not be just etc in commanding him to do what he cannot do..... Augustine/Luther/Calvin went on to argue for the Fall having so corrupted the will that unless God gives the ability to do as He commands, man will not be able to do it because man's will is such (fallen) that He will not desire to please/obey God.... that it takes God's sovereign power (and mercy) to replace a heart of flesh with a heart of stone, that one must be born again by the spirit in order to be saved... for the flesh profits nothing, and nothing is not a little bit of something

blessings,
Ken

 

igpruitt, I'm sorry you were CoC. I HEAR all kinds of horrible things about them and there are some that are quite adamant about baptismal regeneration. But I know there are some awesome CoC congrgations, so don't think I'm trying to be unfair. I myself am probably a Calvinist. I also see that a lot of people who hod an Arminian view eventually end up leaning closer and closer to Calvinism. I just think that Calvinism makes more sense. IMO, before regeneration, the only "free will" man has is to sin. I don't see how a totally depraved soul can make a choice out of "free will" to believe in Christ. It HAS to come from God. I think most people who hold the Aminian view have a problem with particular redemption, or limited atonement. Well, if you are a true believer in Christ, I don't see where you should have any problem with that. Christ died for Hs sheep, those who would believe. Also, Arminius, from the bit that I've read about him, never actually believed one could lose thier salvation though he thought it was a possibility. That was if his beliefs about free will were accurate. I think the bible speaks for itself as far as election, and the perserverance of the saints. John Wesley was a heretic in my opinion. I believe his theology to be utterly flawed. It's his brand of Christianity that gave people like Dan Corner a reason to blast true biblical Christianity. Dan Corner is a heretic in my opinion. It's just THIER theology hinges too much on man. The most convincing aspects of Calvinism for me are the total depravity and election, which are biblical. I don't claim one or the other, but Calvinism makes more sense to me. I love all my brothers and sisters in Christ either waythey believe.

Dustin

 

AMEN, Ken!

 

John Wesley a heretic? Wow, and there was one of the Calvinists favourites, Whitfield, saying he would not see Wesley in Heaven because Wesley would be so much closer to God...

 

opps... I wrote "to replace a heart of flesh with a heart of stone," and I MEANT to write "replace a heart of stone with a heart of flesh!!! lol

blessings,
Ken

 

I think what they mean by no repeated regeneration, correct me if I'm wrong Alley, is that if someone who was saved (i.e., regenerated) and they later apostasize and reject that salvation, then there is no chance of them ever being regenerated (saved) again.