What Are main Differences between Arms and Non cals?

[evenifigoalone]

OK, both sides believe you must be drawn. Calvinist/Reformed believe you must be drawn by Irresistible Grace to be regenerated. You cannot refuse this drawing, you will be irresistibly drawn to Jesus.

Arminians/non-Cals also believe you must be drawn to Jesus, but it is not irresistible, you can resist the Holy Spirit, even reject Him.

Arminians GENERALLY believe you can lose salvation, Non-Calvinists do not believe you can lose salvation. That is why most here will reject being called an Arminian, almost everyone here (but not all) believes once saved, always saved.

Okay. Thanks.
Well, I do believe you can reject the Holy Spirit.

I guess I understand these doctrines less than I thought I did, since I had to ask. xD Oh well.

 

[preacher4truth]

I do not believe in partial depravity. I hold to total depravity


I do not believe that God chooses the elect based on knowing who will believe


I do not believe salvation can be lost.


This certainly needs to be fleshed out on this board so that cals will stop misusing the terms.

Calvinists believe the same things. That said, Cals haven't misused the terms, non and anti-cals have.

Get your act together. :thumbs:

 

[InTheLight]

Calvinist/Reformed believe it is absolutely impossible for the natural man to believe the gospel. That man must be supernaturally regenerated (born again) BEFORE he can be willing or have the ability to believe.

Yes, and incredibly they believe that while belief can only occur after regeneration it need not happen instantaneously, in fact they believe one can be regenerated and not be saved. This is how some Cals explain Hebrews 6:4.

Arminian/Non-Calvinists believe man has the ability to believe the gospel and that regeneration (born again) occurs AFTER believing on Jesus.

I would add that God regenerates us because of belief and it happens in an instant.

 

[preacher4truth]

Okay. Thanks.
Well, I do believe you can reject the Holy Spirit.

I guess I understand these doctrines less than I thought I did, since I had to ask. xD Oh well.

Define the 'you' who reject the Holy Spirit.

All of His WILL come to Him, i.e. irresistible grace. Thus it is only applicable to His sheep.

 

[Winman]

Okay. Thanks.
Well, I do believe you can reject the Holy Spirit.

I guess I understand these doctrines less than I thought I did, since I had to ask. xD Oh well.

Don't feel bad, Calvinism can be somewhat complex, and all Calvinists do not believe the same.

The problem that arises between Calvinists and non-Calvinists is they view God differently.

Calvinists generally (CYB) believe that God only loves a few certain persons called the elect. God chose these persons before the foundation of the world to be saved, based upon no conditions in the man himself, but known only to God. At God's chosen time, he will regenerate these persons so that they will be willing to believe on Jesus Christ.

All others God simply passes by and lets them perish in their sin.

Non-Cals believe that God loves all men and desires all men to be saved, but he does not compel anyone to be saved. God does not regenerate a person and make them irresistibly willing, but he lovingly persuades men to be saved. But the man makes his own choice. If a man does choose Jesus and place their trust in him, at this point God regenerates that person and makes them born again.

Calvinists object that non-Cals teach a man saves himself. Non-Cals object that Calvinism makes God non-loving and the author of sin.

Those are the basics, but there is much more to it. Stick around and you will understand it soon.

 

[InTheLight]

Arminians GENERALLY believe you can lose salvation, Non-Calvinists do not believe you can lose salvation. That is why most here will reject being called an Arminian, almost everyone here (but not all) believes once saved, always saved.

This post answers the OP, IMO.

 

[Winman]

Define the 'you' who reject the Holy Spirit.

All of His WILL come to Him, i.e. irresistible grace. Thus it is only applicable to His sheep.

See, it is getting complex already.

Calvinists believe God calls men with two different callings. God calls non elect persons with a "general" call. There is no supernatural power in this call, it will not regenerate the person who hears it, so that person will remain hostile toward Jesus and the gospel and will not believe.

The other calling is called "effectual" or "irresistible". This call goes out to the elect only, and will immediately make that person perfectly willing to receive Jesus and believe on him.

A preacher can preach a sermon to a crowd. Some may receive the general call and will not be saved. Others might receive the effectual or irresistible call and these persons will absolutely believe and be saved.

 

[quantumfaith]

See, it is getting complex already.

Calvinists believe God calls men with two different callings. God calls non elect persons with a "general" call. There is no supernatural power in this call, it will not regenerate the person who hears it, so that person will remain hostile toward Jesus and the gospel and will not believe.

The other calling is called "effectual" or "irresistible". This call goes out to the elect only, and will immediately make that person perfectly willing to receive Jesus and believe on him.

A preacher can preach a sermon to a crowd. Some may receive the general call and will not be saved. Others might receive the effectual or irresistible call and these persons will absolutely believe and be saved.

Even thought "Cals" and non-cals disagree to one extent or another on most points, I think the biggest "issue" at the crux, is election. Non cals tend to see election more in terms of purpose, mission and corporate, whereas Cals tend to view election more in terms of individual soteriology.

 

[Herald]

Even thought "Cals" and non-cals disagree to one extent or another on most points, I think the biggest "issue" at the crux, is election. Non cals tend to see election more in terms of purpose, mission and corporate, whereas Cals tend to view election more in terms of individual soteriology.

Calvinists certainly do see an effectual call regarding the individual. But they also see a corporate call (although not the same type of corporate call held to by Skandelon). God is calling a people for Himself (the Church). This one, called out people has existed from the time of Adam. As each person is brought into the fold they become part of the Church.

 

[Rippon]

You are a Calarmian.

Actually the comedic term is Calminian.

 

[Rippon]

One of the most devious tactics on BB is to falsely define what someone else believes. Happens all the time by Cals and non-Cals. So Rippon,let me ask you a question.Are Lutherans, Catholics, Episcopalians are Arminians, since they are non-Cals?

I modified your post to clarify.

First of all, many among those communions are unsaved. Those that are saved would overwhelmingly be of an Arminian stripe.

Within the Lutheran camp there are conservative churches. Many display an anti-Reformed stance --so their default position is certainly Arminian.

 

[Rippon]

Gone are the days when an Arminian can deny they are Arminian because they adhere to OSAS.

The above bears repeating.

 

[Winman]

Even thought "Cals" and non-cals disagree to one extent or another on most points, I think the biggest "issue" at the crux, is election. Non cals tend to see election more in terms of purpose, mission and corporate, whereas Cals tend to view election more in terms of individual soteriology.

I don't think that is the great issue. The issue is how God is portrayed. I object to a system that portrays God as one who simply passes by people and lets them die in their sins, this does not accurately represent God in the scriptures at all.

And actually, in Calvinism God doesn't simply pass by folks, in Calvinism God cursed men to be totally depraved and unable to believe, and then punishes them for the very inability he cursed them with. Horrendous.

THAT is the issue.

 

[JonC]

I modified your post to clarify.

First of all, many among those communions are unsaved. Those that are saved would overwhelmingly be of an Arminian stripe.

Within the Lutheran camp there are conservative churches. Many display an anti-Reformed stance --so their default position is certainly Arminian.

Arminian is not by default the anti-Reformed stance - it carries it's own theology which is, to a large extent, aligned with Calvinism (after all, it was derived from Calvinism). There are plenty of non-Cals who are distinctively non-Arminian.

Lutheran is a good example. They reject Calvinism - but their doctrine also stands in opposition to Arminianism. In my area, there are plenty derived from Anabaptist doctrine, which is also non-Arminian to the core but remains anti-Reformed as well.

 

[InTheLight]

Within the Lutheran camp there are conservative churches. Many display an anti-Reformed stance --so their default position is certainly Arminian.

I guess you've never read Luther's "Bondage of the Will". It's frequently cited by Calvinists to make arguments for man not having a free will. Lutherans are definitely not Arminian.

 

[Rippon]

I guess you've never read Luther's "Bondage of the Will". It's frequently cited by Calvinists to make arguments for man not having a free will.

I certainly am familiar with it. I have cited it numerous times on the BB. It is indeed excellent. However, most Lutherans have departed radically from Luther's soteriology in this area. The more conservative ones lean more toward Luther's POV in this regard.

Lutherans are definitely not Arminian.

Again, they are a varied bunch. I will contend that they are certainly not Calvinists. The more conservative congragations do have Calvinistic intersections, but they are not Reformed. And I know that Presbyterians and other groups would not dare say that any Baptists are Reformed either. But the more charitable among them would acknowledge our Calvinistic moorings. Present-day Lutherans by-and-large are not in the Calvinistic camp unless you want to make it an even bigger tent than it has become.

 

[Yeshua1]

Other than the BB I hadn't heard that non-Cal means Arminian. I'd be interested to learn more about how Arminianism came to mean any theological that disagrees with Calvinism - especially since it is of Calvinistic trajectory while many non-Cals are not - if you have the time. And last I heard Amyraldianism is Calvinism, perhaps closer to pre-Beza Calvinism but more than merely a trajectory of the system.

Since the Lord saved me, have jouneyed to being at first an Evangelical arm, to an Amyraldist, to holding now to all 5 points of calvinism, and still think
Amyraldianism if a form of calvinism, and that some here might be in that camp and not realise what it was called!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, and incredibly they believe that while belief can only occur after regeneration it need not happen instantaneously, in fact they believe one can be regenerated and not be saved. This is how some Cals explain Hebrews 6:4.



I would add that God regenerates us because of belief and it happens in an instant.

'some' calvinists hold to that, but as Spurgeon himself said, he preaches to those needing to get saved,not saved already by God, for why preach to thsoe already regenerated/converted!

So would as a Cal see BOTH happening so close to each other, like same event!

 

[Yeshua1]

This post answers the OP, IMO.

The Logical position for an Arm would be to have God honor free will even after salvation, and so could choose to fall away, but MOST arms also hold to OSAS!

Theri founder was himself unsure on this issue!

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't think that is the great issue. The issue is how God is portrayed. I object to a system that portrays God as one who simply passes by people and lets them die in their sins, this does not accurately represent God in the scriptures at all.

And actually, in Calvinism God doesn't simply pass by folks, in Calvinism God cursed men to be totally depraved and unable to believe, and then punishes them for the very inability he cursed them with. Horrendous.

THAT is the issue.

election IS indeed the main division here, as that relates to how one views the part, if any, man plays in getting saved!

And while some cals see God as being active in determine the lost/saved state of sinners, MOST would hold to him being determining the stae of the saved in direct/active way, but passing over those still remaining lost!