Why I Am Not an Arminian

Tom Butler · Jan 11, 2011

menageriekeeper said:
Tom, I think you have somewhat of a misunderstanding. We nonCal/nonArms aren't inconsistant in the the belief that one can't "unbelieve" after once believing. We believe that the process of salvation includes the giving over of our will to Christ. As new creatures we no longer need that free will. Once given then to Christ, even if we try to go the opposite direction our souls are secure though our bodies will suffer the consequence of not holding to our part of the covenant. As Paul says "give such a one over to the destruction of the flesh, that the soul may yet be saved."

I agree with much of what you write. What caught my attention was this line:

As new creatures we no longer need that free will.

That's the part I disagree with. When the Lord saves us, we do not get rid of our old nature. It's still there. We are given a new nature, which frees up our will to battle the desires of the old nature.

Tom Butler · Jan 11, 2011

drfuss said:
Tom writes:
"I think they're wrong, of course, but they are at least being more consistent than we Baptists, who get bent out of shape if we're called Arminians."

I have a friend who graduated many years ago from seminary as a 5 point Calvinist. He now only really believes in one point - the eternal security point. However, he still calls himself a 5-Point Calvinists; He just re-defined the other four points so he can still call himself a 5-Point Calvinist.

It is amazing how some Christians get out of shape if they are called an Arminian. I guess the idea that Arminians are bad, has been so drilled into them, that they cannot accept who they really are.

Well, eternal security is the sticking point. Arminians believe you can lose your salvation. Since Baptists don't, they don't want to be called Arminian. Actually I don't blame them. But the only alternative is to label them non-Calvinists.

Some believers try to avoid the issue by saying they don't want to be labeled. That's okay, but they are what they are, and the labels are handy shorthand.

Don · Jan 11, 2011

Seems to me the Arminian point is widely held by Wesleyans and Methodists; and God forbid if any Baptist associates him/herself with the Methodists. :smilewinkgrin:

Me, I think I'm more in the area of semi-Armenian/semi-Calvinist...which, in political terms, I think makes me a moderate?

BobinKy · Jan 11, 2011

Don said:
Seems to me the Arminian point is widely held by Wesleyans and Methodists; and God forbid if any Baptist associates him/herself with the Methodists. :smilewinkgrin:

Me, I think I'm more in the area of semi-Armenian/semi-Calvinist...which, in political terms, I think makes me a moderate?

Thanks for your post.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the "in-between" doctrine.

After all, doctrine, dogma, and theology are nothing more than people trying to organize their religious and spiritual beliefs so they can write them down and/or communicate them to other people.

...Bob

BobinKy · Jan 11, 2011

drfuss said:
I guess the idea that Arminians are bad, has been so drilled into them, that they cannot accept who they really are.

Are you talking about the Calvinist Cadet Corps?

...Bob

drfuss · Jan 11, 2011

Don said:
Seems to me the Arminian point is widely held by Wesleyans and Methodists; and God forbid if any Baptist associates him/herself with the Methodists. :smilewinkgrin:

Most other Arminians, that don't believe in the doctrine of eternal security, believe a Christian can forfeit, but not lose their salvation.

go2church · Jan 11, 2011

I don't have any trouble with the Arminian "label", what it seems I have the most trouble with are folks who think they know what Arminianism is and the conclusions they jump to based on their incorrect assumptions. You know much in the same way Calvinists are always fighting the "they are evangelistic".

Both are a form of reformed theology in the wider sense and both have contributed to the greater good of christian thought. No need to play divide and conquer as far as I am concerned

Winman · Jan 11, 2011

They will hold to free will as regards the will to choose to repent and trust Christ for salvation, but will deny man's free will to unbelieve. The saved simply cannot exercise their will to deny Christ once they have embraced him. So the will is free only up to a point.

This is a hypothetical that is very unreasonable to believe would ever happen. Why would someone who truly believes they are a sinner, that the wages of sin is eternal seperation from God in hell, and that only Jesus who died for their sins and rose can save them ever willingly choose not to believe on Jesus?

The will is affected by belief. If you really believe what the scriptures say, I cannot imagine anyone later deciding to reject Christ and willingly go to hell, unless they were suffering from some real and severe mental disorder.

Cals love to post hypotheticals like this as some sort of proof that their doctrine is correct. It does no such thing.

Luke2427 · Jan 11, 2011

drfuss said:
Most other Arminians, that don't believe in the doctrine of eternal security, believe a Christian can forfeit, but not lose their salvation.

This is a more consistent theology than those that believe in free will before salvation unto salvation and deny it post salvation.

Luke2427 · Jan 11, 2011

Winman said:
This is a hypothetical that is very unreasonable to believe would ever happen. Why would someone who truly believes they are a sinner, that the wages of sin is eternal seperation from God in hell, and that only Jesus who died for their sins and rose can save them ever willingly choose not to believe on Jesus?

The will is affected by belief. If you really believe what the scriptures say, I cannot imagine anyone later deciding to reject Christ and willingly go to hell, unless they were suffering from some real and severe mental disorder.

Cals love to post hypotheticals like this as some sort of proof that their doctrine is correct. It does no such thing.

Asking why does not answer a question Winman.

Why would they? Because of sin. Because of the pleasures of sin. Because of doubt.

There are billions of reasons why a person could freely choose to opt OUT of salvation just as easily as he chose to opt IN if his will is still just as free as it was before he was saved.

Winman · Jan 11, 2011

Luke2427 said:
Asking why does not answer a question Winman.

Why would they? Because of sin. Because of the pleasures of sin. Because of doubt.

There are billions of reasons why a person could freely choose to opt OUT of salvation just as easily as he chose to opt IN if his will is still just as free as it was before he was saved.

I disagree, no one who sincerely and truly believes in eternal condemnation in a real hell loves sin. Oh, people can get caught up in sin and even bound by it, but no true believer can love sin because they know the end result of sin, eternal damnation.

And any person who truly and sincerely believes in Jesus loves him and would not reject him later.

You know, sometimes a fellow will leave his wife because he meets someone else who he thinks might bring him greater happiness. But no man in his right mind would leave a wife who has shown him great love and kindness to run off with a woman that he absolutely knows will cause him torment and anguish.

So why would anybody who truly believes in Jesus and knows he will give them eternal peace and happiness run off to the Devil whom he knows will cause him everlasting torment?

So, this is an unreasonable and very unrealistic hypothetical.

Luke2427 · Jan 11, 2011

Winman said:
I disagree, no one who sincerely and truly believes in eternal condemnation in a real hell loves sin. Oh, people can get caught up in sin and even bound by it, but no true believer can love sin because they know the end result of sin, eternal damnation.