Stuff We Calvinist/Arminians really agree on...our common ground

Have a dialogue between the two opposing parts and you will find that they always start out fighting each other until we come to an appreciation of difference, ... a oneness and integration of the two opposing forces. Then the civil war is finished, and your energies are ready for your struggle with the world.

- Frederich Perls

As much as we argue, mean-spirited or not, I do believe that we must understand that we ARE on the same side. Until we can appreciate our differences of opinion and learn to accept them, we will always end up fighting each other instead of fighting against "this present darkness."

 

a very, very nice first post, Bob!

so now let's get your first topic on roll.

common ground......

oops, i find it hard, but here goes:

1. God's standard for accepting a soul is perfect rigtheousness.

2. that rightreousness can only be attained throught justification.

3. salvation is by grace through faith, and not of works.

 

*Whistle blows*

#3 is not an agreed upon point

I do agree with it - but there are well "people" who dont

 

And to that 3 point list we can add -

4. God is sovereign and sovereignly chose the current method/model of salvation.

5. God is all knowing past present and future.

6. God sovereignly chose a system of "free will" for Adam and Lucifer (at infinite cost to Himself) EVEN though He already knew the future. He chose Free Will for Christ - EVEN though He knows all things in the future.

We do not fully understand how Adam, Lucifer, Christ "COULD" have had "free will" EVEN though God knew their entire future down to the last detail. But that is probably because we are not infinite beings capable of infinite understanding.

7. Man is totally depraved.

8. All those who are saved in the end - will have accepted Christ and "perservered" unto the end (death or the second coming).

In Christ,

Bob

[ September 04, 2002, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Nice post Bob but I have been here for one year and there is only one thing that I believe we all can agree on!... God will save ALL his children!... Past, Present, and Future!... There is just disagreements on how all this comes about... Grace or Works or maybe a blend!... What common ground?... This is the Calvinist/Arminian Debate Forum... No argument on that!... It definately lives up to its name!... Ready... Aim... Bob step to the side a little you are in my crosshairs ... Brother Glen

 

Glen - all I ask is that you are 'Shootin straight'.

Actually I think that approaching differences from a list of "commonly held beliefs" is one of the best ways to find exactly which fork in the road resulted in the differences.

It is often the case that what "appears" as an entire array of differences actually boils down to 1 or two basic one from which all the others bloom.

For example - both Calvinist and Arminians believe that Salvation is the gracious gift of a loving God to fallen man.

But Calvinists consider free will to be too much of man and too little of God's grace.

Arminians see "no will" as unloving and arbitrary selection.

From that starting point they both find texts that are naturally supportive (in the language that is actually in the text) and other texts that they "work" to make them friendly.

#7. Another point that they "both" agree on - is that evangelism is to use the Arminian sytem of calling people to make a choice and motivating them to "choose this day whom you will serve".

A 5 point Calvinist evangelist will not call a meeting and then instead of appealing for souls to recieve Christ - say "we are gathered here to observe who might be predestined to come forward and give their heart to God tonight. Let's all just sit quietly and watch what might happen".

IN that respect - both sides agree on "Appeals" and a sermon that provides "appeals" and "reasons to decide for Christ" - is using Arminian "means" to achieve the Calvinist "results"

In Christ,

Bob

[ September 04, 2002, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Some things we all agree on:

1. The Fall of Man
2. The Fall of the Archangel/Satan
3. The Depravity of Human Beings
4. An Elect People of God
5. The Atonement
6. Salvation by His Grace
7. Heaven & Hell
8. The Indwelling of the Spirit of God
9. Christ Will Come Again
10. Adoption
11. The Trinity of God
12. Assurance of Salvation
13. The New Heaven & the New Earth
14. Eternity
15. The Lost Condition of All Human Beings
16. The Final Judgment

 

Points of Bi-partisan agreement but not all agreement.

1. It is often the case that 5 point Calvinists will complain that the Arminians that believe you lose free will after you get saved are being inconsistent.

On that point - many Arminians do agree with the 5 point Calvinists on that point. Once you choose the free will model - it is inconsistent to argue that you have more free will while lost than while saved - and it is inconsistent to argue that Adam freely chose rebellion then freely chose eternal life again - then lost free will.

But of course - we are inclined to also agree with the 3-point Calvinists in that - Christ did die for the whole World and grace is resisted all the time by many people.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Just for your info--even a five point Calvinist believes that grace is resisted all the time by many people. They just believe that when God decides to bring someone to Him that particular grace will not, in the end, be resisted.

 

I was raised a thorough-going Arminian. With that said, let me state that any "Arminian" who is not a "5-pointer" is inconsistent.

I would add to this that Calvinists and Arminians DO NOT agree on some of the aforementioned topics, such as: the atonement (What did Christ do? For whom did He die?), the elect people of God (Who are the elect, those chosen by God or the ones who have chosen God?), depravity (What is the extent of sin's power and penalty?), salvation by grace (Is it grace alone or grace plus ____?) and the assurance of salvation (What is the basis of assurance?).

Rev. G

 

RevG.

Just because there are different views of Christ's atonement, for example, doesn't mean that Calvinists and people who are Arminian in theolgy, do not believe that Christ's blood can cleanse a sinners iniquities. Are you of the mindset that there is not any atonement?

 

No, friend, I'm not of that mindset. What I'm saying is this - the "Arminian" believes that the atonement has brought possibility. With this comes some problems. If a lost person's sins are "paid for", then why does he/she still get sent to Hell? "For rejecting Christ." Isn't rejecting a Christ? Is that the only sin that is left without payment?

I think there are some Liberals who clearly understand that substitutionary atonement is vitally linked to "limited" atonement (personally, I dislike that term). That is because Christ is truly a substitute in the atonement. He actually paid for the sins of His people. The atonement is not a "possibility," but a reality. Having said that, please know that I would agree with you that both "Arminian" and "Calvinist" Baptists who hold to a literal atonement (not denying it as some do) do have that in common...even though the views of the atonement are in many respects quite different. Do you understand what I'm trying to say here?

Rev. G

 

Rev.G,

I understand what you are saying.

Before the Hebrew people were released from Egyptian bondage they were commanded to place blood over the doorpost. God's command was to all of the people. If they neglected or wilfully did not do this, is no reason to blame God for killing their first-born.

The same is true with Christ's atonement on the Cross. The possibility of everyone's sins being covered was appropriated by Christ, [I Tim. 2:4 & 6] but neglect will be no excuse to offer to God in the final judgment for not receiving Jesus and his covering for sin.