Reformed? Or Arminian?

rocknrollchuck · 2020-07-02T14:06:06+00:00

I'm not going to label myself Calvinist or Arminian because I don't think either one is correct when compared to the whole of Scripture. With that in mind, here's where I currently sit theologically - I used the Calvinist points as headers because it's an easy way to break down the important points:

** Partial depravity - humanity is depraved but still able to seek God. We are fallen and tainted by sin but not to the extent that we cannot chose to come to God and accept salvation, with the help of prevenient grace from God. Simply put, prevenient grace is the grace of God given to individuals that releases them from their bondage to sin and enables them to come to Christ in faith but does not guarantee that the sinner will actually do so. Thus, in my opinion God's sovereignty and man's free will are both equally preserved.

https://www.gotquestions.org/prevenient-grace.html

Given such grace, human will is free and has the power to yield to the influence of the Spirit. Note: many Arminians reject partial depravity and hold a view very close to Calvinistic total depravity.

** ELECTION - Not unconditional election, not conditional election (at least according to traditional Calvinist and Arminian definitions) - Calvinism includes the belief that election is unconditional, while Arminianism believes in conditional election. Unconditional election is the view that God elects individuals to salvation based entirely on His will, not on anything inherently worthy in the individual. Conditional election states that God elects individuals to salvation based on His foreknowledge of who will believe in Christ unto salvation, thereby on the condition that the individual chooses God.

Now Arminians will claim that our ability to choose Jesus is the result of a universal grace that God first gives to all people that offsets the effects of the fall and allows man to choose to accept or reject Christ. In other words, God must do something to even make the choice of salvation possible, but in the end it is our choice which saves us. John 3:36 certainly affirms that those who believe have eternal life and that those who reject do not have eternal life, so it would seem there is some scriptural support for this doctrine. Thus, the synergistic argument claims that God makes salvation possible, but it is our choice that makes salvation actual.

So, while monergism claims that God is both a necessary and sufficient condition for our salvation, synergism will agree that God is a necessary condition, but will deny His sufficiency. Our free will plus God’s activity is what makes it sufficient. Logically speaking, we should be able to see the flaw in the synergistic argument—that God doesn’t actually save anyone. This places the responsibility for salvation on us, for it is we who have to make salvation real by placing our faith in Christ.

** Election which is based on God's will, while still allowing for man's free will choice - I believe God elects individuals to salvation based on His will, not because of anything inherently worthy in the individual. But because we have free will, and therefore the ability to choose to love or reject Him, His will to elect them is based on His foreknowledge of those He knows will choose Him of their own free will. This preserves both the sovereignty of God as well as the free will of mankind. I believe this is the only way the election of God and the free will of man can both be preserved, and yet still provide for man's salvation.

** Unlimited Atonement - Calvinism sees the atonement as limited, while Arminianism sees it as unlimited. This is the most controversial of the five points. Limited atonement is the belief that Jesus only died for the elect. Unlimited atonement is the belief that Jesus died for all, but that His death is not effectual until a person receives Him by faith. 2 Peter 3:9 says "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." That settles it as far as I'm concerned.

** Resistable Grace - Calvinism includes the belief that God’s grace is irresistible, while Arminianism says that an individual can resist the grace of God. Irresistible grace argues that when God calls a person to salvation, that person will inevitably come to salvation. Resistible grace states that God calls all to salvation, but that many people resist and reject this call.

** Eternal Security - When people come to know Christ as their Savior, they are brought into a relationship with God that guarantees their eternal security. Jude 24 declares, "To Him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before His glorious presence without fault and with great joy." God's power is able to keep the believer from falling. It is up to Him, not us, to present us before His glorious presence. Our eternal security is a result of God keeping us, not us maintaining our own salvation.

The Lord Jesus Christ proclaimed, "I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand" (John 10:28-29b). Both Jesus and the Father have us firmly grasped in their hand. Who could possibly separate us from the grip of both the Father and the Son?

Ephesians 4:30 tells us that believers are "sealed for the day of redemption." If believers did not have eternal security, the sealing could not truly be unto the day of redemption, but only to the day of sinning, apostasy, or disbelief. John 3:15-16 tells us that whoever believes in Jesus Christ will "have eternal life." If a person were to be promised eternal life, but then have it taken away, it was never "eternal" to begin with. If eternal security is not true, the promises of eternal life in the Bible would be in error.

The most powerful argument for eternal security is Romans 8:38-39, "For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Our eternal security is based on God's love for those whom He has redeemed. Our eternal security is purchased by Christ, promised by the Father, and sealed by the Holy Spirit.

https://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-security.html https://www.gotquestions.org/arminianism.html https://www.gotquestions.org/Calvinism-vs-Arminianism.html

(I personally believe that we must choose to respond to the call of Christ, which God produces but we must choose or resist) The Arminians say that God helps us. He helps all people, but we provide the last, decisive impetus and desire for that belief.

Or I might say it like this: You can tell if someone is an Arminian or a Calvinist by how they answer the question, “What was the decisive cause of your faith in Christ?” So you go up to somebody and you ask, “What was the decisive cause of your faith in Christ? Was it God or was it yourself?” And the Calvinist says, “The decisive cause of my faith was God” and the Arminian says, “The decisive cause of my faith in Christ is myself.”

https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/watershed-differences-between-calvinists-and-arminians

The question that solidified my position years ago was this: If God is already going to save everyone He will save and they have no choice but are irresistibly drawn to Him for salvation, then why do we need to share the Gospel? Won't God accomplish His work without any effort on our part?

Complementarian or egalitarian in marriage doctrine?

...if you are egalitarian in doctrine id love to hear more from you!

Scripture does not teach Complementarianism or Egalitarianism, although Complementarianism is closer to the biblical standard. The Biblical marriage structure is Patriarchy (specifically, headship like Christ-Church), but that's not a popular thing to say these days. It really comes down to whether you believe Scripture or not - even the difficult parts.

*Edit - added a Scripture verse in support of my position

Red-Curious · 2020-07-02T19:12:08+00:00

reformed or Arminian?

Compatibilist. Imagine being a two dimensional being looking at this three dimensional object. One person looking from the bottom would swear it's a square. Another looking at it from the side would think the first guy is crazy because it's obviously a triangle. The two appear completely incompatible, right? Yet those of us existing in 3 dimensions see how plainly simple the shape is.

Complementarian or egalitarian in marriage doctrine?

I say this as a mod and founder of this subreddit: EGALITARIANISM IS NOT WELCOME HERE AND IS NOT BIBLICAL.

...if you are egalitarian in doctrine id love to hear more from you!

For what purpose? Because you are an egalitarian and want more support for your unbiblical view? Or because you are opposed to egalitarianism and are curious to understand why anyone would believe such an unbiblical view?

2020-07-02T13:01:42+00:00

I believe it's theologically diverse here because there's much more emphasis placed on Christian ethics as opposed to systematic theology. But I do sure hope there's a good Reformed presence here. Greetings from a fellow Australian and also a Reformed Baptist!

LouiseConnor · 2020-07-02T13:38:17+00:00

Reformed complementarian here.

Presently without a church after breaking away from a wayward PCUSA “church.”

Past affiliations have included RCNA, a reformed Primitive Baptist church, and an unusual E-Free church where Arminians and Calvinists served and worshipped together in peace for decades. Then my family and I moved far away.

While I’m no longer in a Cage Stage, I do see the vital importance of belonging to and serving a church with Reformed doctrine in practice.

FrRustyShackleford · 2020-07-02T13:53:36+00:00

Good question - Egalitarianism and RP do not mix - one of our core tenants as Christians is that a man must lead a marriage and RP predicts that a women both expects this and enjoys this. Women who don’t will likely try to control a marriage and there simply cannot be two equal leaders.

DeChef2 · 2020-07-02T13:27:58+00:00

I've only ever heard Arminian used in conjunction with Calvinism; I was never educated in the specifics of the different denominations/divisions in Christianity, so I can't tell you to which we lean.

As for marriage doctrine, that is made pretty clear in our sidebar.

We are definitively against egalitarianism because it simply is not biblical. Look at Eph. 5 and 1 Cor. 7.

Complementarianism is more tricky, as it supports male headship, but it's motives are given away in the name. Men and women aren't here to complement each other. Our individual purpose is to bring glory to God. In marriage, the husband is the head while the wife is the helpmeet; husbands are called to love their wives, wives are called to respect their husbands; and the husband is called to help his wife towards sanctification. But the purpose is still to bring glory to God. How? By reflecting the relationship between Jesus and the Church (as in the collection of Christians throughout the centuries that is Christ's bride, not just the buildings we worship in).

Marriage is not about complementing each other. It's about being an example to the world of the relationship between Jesus and His Church.

lololasaurus · 2020-07-03T00:14:25+00:00

Weapons grade Calvinist who prefers to avoid getting stuck on calvinist language and just wants to make disciples. It's such a pointless thing to argue about.

I'm going to look up more about red-curious' compatibilist label though because I've never heard it.

LouiseConnor · 2020-07-02T14:20:40+00:00

Not Reformed, not Calvinist. Not totally Arminian. Not egalitarian. Is anyone egalitarian here?

ENTPunisher · 2020-07-03T00:21:33+00:00

Former Episcopalian here, I'm currently a Fundamental Baptist. I agree with the comments that have already been posted which promote compatibilism, male headship in marriages and churches (neither complementarianism nor egalitarianism), and eternal security.

NoFaithInThisSub · 2020-07-03T02:14:05+00:00

Complementarian or egalitarian in marriage doctrine?

sorry i stopped being a faggot ages ago when i joined this sub.

Male domination patriarchy as GOD THE FATHER intended.

NoFaithInThisSub · 2020-07-03T05:42:52+00:00

Complementarian or egalitarian in marriage doctrine?

sorry i stopped pandering to a beta hypergamy frame ages ago when i joined this sub.

Male domination patriarchy as GOD THE FATHER intended.

DuffBude · 2020-07-02T15:30:48+00:00

Catholic

ironicsadboy · 2020-07-02T16:57:41+00:00

Catholic.

TXJohn83 · 2020-07-02T22:09:18+00:00

Church of Christ along the lines of the Stone-Campbell Movement. The best way to describe it is a very literal interpretation of the Bible.

Complementarian marriage doctrine. Ephesians 5:22-33

More along the lines of Arminian, but it has elements of Pelagianism.

Seemedlikefun · 2020-07-08T11:39:19+00:00

Reformed Anglican. Doctrines of Grace Complimentarian African American (It's so cold and alone out here!)

OsmiumZulu · 2020-07-02T15:44:44+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Tyrangian · 2020-07-02T18:25:03+00:00

Lutheran here ;)

Bearman637 · 2020-07-07T06:48:17+00:00

4 point Calvinist (amyraldian). Complementarian.

I think 4 pointers have a good balance and is best structurally imo.

sliprymdgt · 2020-07-02T17:37:20+00:00

The future is truly open, it does not exist, and God is not outside of time.

Everything good is a gift from God, including but not limited to, faith and salvation.

Calvinists and Arminians are both two goofy sides of the same overly Western coin.

Title	Reformed? Or Arminian?
Author	BD_Energee
Upvotes	15
Comments	61
Date	July 2, 2020 12:54 PM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/RPChristians
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/RPChristians/comments/hjwgzs/reformed_or_arminian/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/RPChristians/reformed-or-arminian.704219 https://theredarchive.com/post/704219