Distinctly Arminian

[TigerBunny]

I've often heard, and thought considering my fondness of C.S. Lewis, that both Calvinist and Arminian Theology share much of thier belief sets. Recently someone posted a thread over at CARM challenging the Calvinists to define Arminian Theology.

I'll withhold my thoughts on the motive for that post as I believe I've covered that point there...but it did bring to mind the question "What is truly specific about Arminian Theology that is *not* held by both camps?"

Does it simply come down to the traditional contention outlined in Dort or is there more to examine now?

[Tallen]

I've often heard, and thought considering my fondness of C.S. Lewis, that both Calvinist and Arminian Theology share much of thier belief sets. Recently someone posted a thread over at CARM challenging the Calvinists to define Arminian Theology.

I'll withhold my thoughts on the motive for that post as I believe I've covered that point there...but it did bring to mind the question "What is truly specific about Arminian Theology that is *not* held by both camps?"

Does it simply come down to the traditional contention outlined in Dort or is there more to examine now?

It is the distinctions that the Arminian delegation brought before Dort in thier Remanstrance. Since they were mainly Calvinist, but reject the Belgic Confession, and mostly in the Dutch Reformed Church, they were reacting to certain points of Calvinistic theology. From there, it has grown into a tree branch like theology, with various neuances and factions. Just like their Calvinist brothers.

http://www.theopedia.com/Five_Articles_of_Remonstrance

[TigerBunny]

It is the distinctions that the Arminian delegation brought before Dort in thier Remanstrance. Since they were mainly Calvinist, but reject the Belgic Confession, and mostly in the Dutch Reformed Church, they were reacting to certain points of Calvinistic theology. From there, it has grown into a tree branch like theology, with various neuances and factions. Just like their Calvinist brothers.

http://www.theopedia.com/Five_Articles_of_Remonstrance

Thank you Ted...has anyone tried to map those "trees"?

[Tallen]

Thank you Ted...has anyone tried to map those "trees"?

Yeah, although I don't recall right now where I say them. Perhaps Trav could help there.

I did see a "tree" recently of the Presbyterian denomination since it was started until now..., what a mess and embarrassment. We Christians sure can pick apart and find the minutea to be divisive over. It reminds me of the Disciples when they wanted the priority seat and sit next to Christ.

[TigerBunny]

Yeah, although I don't recall right now where I say them. Perhaps Trav could help there.

I did see a "tree" recently of the Presbyterian denomination since it was started until now..., what a mess and embarrassment. We Christians sure can pick apart and find the minutea to be divisive over. It reminds me of the Disciples when they wanted the priority seat and sit next to Christ.

Trav seems to have an issue with me over there and to be honest I'm not sure why. We've had our disagreements of course but I don't hold that against him. He's being true to his beliefs and one of the few who are consistant. I admire and honor that.

I don't want to derail here but Trav...what gives Bro?

[travelah]

Trav seems to have an issue with me over there and to be honest I'm not sure why. We've had our disagreements of course but I don't hold that against him. He's being true to his beliefs and one of the few who are consistant. I admire and honor that.

I don't want to derail here but Trav...what gives Bro?

PLS, I have grown weary of the neophytes repeatedly defining a faith I do not adhere to. Currently there are a handfull of new "Neophytes" who have come on board with the same old rhetoric and empty nothings charging Arminians with essentially being heretics. Now it is not my intention to cause any friction between us and I apologize if I have been harsh. I believe it is time for non-Calvinists to insist that Calvinists defend their faith (beliefs) and offer something to convince others of their correctness rather than placing all non-Calvinists on the defensive.. Instead Calvinists seem to have placed themselves on a pedestal claiming the high road in theological discussions. When you are in a minority position in the church (a significantly small minority), then the pedestal is not appropriate.

Here is the strategy I see unfolding and I support it fully. Arminian academics and theologians as well as well read laymen need to step up to the challenge of refusing the defensive posture and turn that role right back onto the Calvinist position. We are not the minority group doctrinally in the body of Christ. We have defined the issues that separate us doctrinally from our Calvinist brethren. A significant majority of saints in Christ are on board with 80 percent of our doctrine (a considerable number of Arminians are also hesitant on the unconditional security issue as well). My point is I believe Calvinists have had a free ride for too long in pushing everybody else to a defensive stance and I have taken up a theological politic of sorts. Am I a crusade of one? I don't think so but that really doesn't matter. I think it is becoming clear after 450 years of practice that one of the essential doctrines of Calvinism is opposition to anything not Calvinistic. That is a dangerous dogmatic outlook but I do not think it can be denied.

I want to emphasize that it was not my intention to cause a rift with us, PLS. I wanted you to define Arminianism rather than dismiss it with rhetoric (the herding cats comment). I think you will see more and more of this on CARM and elsewhere, this pushing back on Calvinists to more clearly define the terms, labels and ideas they routinely mask with rhetoric. To more clearly elucidate their thoughts and positions to a listening body, Calvinists will have to push their James White mentality out the door as it is self defeating with an educated Arminian opposition.

Blessings in Christ

Trav

[travelah]

This is an interesting denominational tree. You can click on each branch to get a sub category listing. I have not studied this extensively yet so I will explore it as well. I have seen an excellent expanded denominational tree but for the life of me i cannot remember where it was.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Christian_denomination_tree_(categories)

[travelah]

http://www.orthodoxonline.com/images/tree_of_church_history.jpg

[travelah]

It took some digging but here is one of the best sources I can provide. (monergist better hide himself as he will not be able to take this)

http://www.thearda.com/Denoms/Families/

[JBaker45]

.. Calvinists will have to push their James White mentality out the door as it is self defeating with an educated Arminian opposition.
Lol :smile:

[TigerBunny]

PLS, I have grown weary of the neophytes repeatedly defining a faith I do not adhere to. Currently there are a handfull of new "Neophytes" who have come on board with the same old rhetoric and empty nothings charging Arminians with essentially being heretics. Now it is not my intention to cause any friction between us and I apologize if I have been harsh. I believe it is time for non-Calvinists to insist that Calvinists defend their faith (beliefs) and offer something to convince others of their correctness rather than placing all non-Calvinists on the defensive.. Instead Calvinists seem to have placed themselves on a pedestal claiming the high road in theological discussions. When you are in a minority position in the church (a significantly small minority), then the pedestal is not appropriate.

Here is the strategy I see unfolding and I support it fully. Arminian academics and theologians as well as well read laymen need to step up to the challenge of refusing the defensive posture and turn that role right back onto the Calvinist position. We are not the minority group doctrinally in the body of Christ. We have defined the issues that separate us doctrinally from our Calvinist brethren. A significant majority of saints in Christ are on board with 80 percent of our doctrine (a considerable number of Arminians are also hesitant on the unconditional security issue as well). My point is I believe Calvinists have had a free ride for too long in pushing everybody else to a defensive stance and I have taken up a theological politic of sorts. Am I a crusade of one? I don't think so but that really doesn't matter. I think it is becoming clear after 450 years of practice that one of the essential doctrines of Calvinism is opposition to anything not Calvinistic. That is a dangerous dogmatic outlook but I do not think it can be denied.

I want to emphasize that it was not my intention to cause a rift with us, PLS. I wanted you to define Arminianism rather than dismiss it with rhetoric (the herding cats comment). I think you will see more and more of this on CARM and elsewhere, this pushing back on Calvinists to more clearly define the terms, labels and ideas they routinely mask with rhetoric. To more clearly elucidate their thoughts and positions to a listening body, Calvinists will have to push their James White mentality out the door as it is self defeating with an educated Arminian opposition.

Blessings in Christ

Trav

Now that makes perfect sense. Bless you brother and thank you. This puts my heart at rest.

The problem with my defining Arminianism, as I see it, is that at present the very clarity you ask for doesn't exist. There are too many factions with too many ideas. Too little documentation that all can agree on...so the moment any Calvinist tries to define it the gentlest reception is "wrong".

As it is I could point to Dort but, as Ted has mentioned, the Arminianism of that time is not what it is today ( I'm simplifying but I believe that is the essense of what was said ). I could point to my own experiences but that would also be incorrect as my theology at that time had very little form or logic. I could point to many fine posts by Arminian folk that have merit but contradict each other. I could point to several Reformed sites with definitions...but by thier being Calvinist it seems thier definitions are immediately in question.

It certainly isn't easy with the non-Arminian/Calvinist folk tossing thier two cents in as well on both sides.

Therefore what would you have me, or any of us, do?

[JBaker45]

Excellent question.

[Yodas_Prodigy]

I think it is becoming clear after 450 years of practice that one of the essential doctrines of Calvinism is opposition to anything not Calvinistic. That is a dangerous dogmatic outlook but I do not think it can be denied.



I agree. Though I am a Five-Pointer, I look at the Arminians as my brothers who see salvation from a slightly different angle from me. And, I can see how they have come to their position.

Also, I see some Calvinists (and Arminians) over at CARM wanting to be divisive with their uniformed view of the opposite camp. Both sides create straw men and then beat the straw.

Here's four for you:

Calvinism leads to fatalism
Arminianism leads to works theology
Calvinism makes God the author of Sin
Arminianism is a form of Pelagianism

And it goes on. This is why I have stayed out of that debate. I have three reasons in attending different forums, to reach the lost or learn to reach the lost (Oneness, JW's, LDS), to guide those away from a religion that is heading away from Christ (WoF) and to learn more in an area that I am unsettled (Prophecy)

[Tallen]

Trav I appreciate this post very much, it is an honest and heartfelt response to TB.

The problem that I see over on CARM is that there is no rapprochement, or very little, between the Calvinists and Arminians. If we share 80-90% of a theological foundation, then I would say we should be agreeing 80-90% of the time, finding commonality and unity in the Spirit of God. Working to edify the one faith and one body we are called to. I find it very frustrating, and very uncomfortable to fight for something with people I respect and love. When and where do either of the Calvinists or Arminians spend time in a mutual respect and conversing where the agreement is found, on CARM? What purpose does it accomplish, if I am in a discussion with you and offend you and am met with anger and stubbornness, or visa versa? Not that you are doing such, but it seems that is the spirit of the board and little gets accomplished as one crop of newbies offends and starts the cycle all over again. We share a good portion of our theologies and stand on common ground, lets teach each other in love where we differ, and be united in our stand against error and unbelief. It is much more effective.

Let's know our differences and when someone new comes to the board to be divisive, both stand against such things and refer them to discussions that have already went over these issues. I would rather unite with my Arminian friends and brothers to fight against the centuries old spirit of division, rather than continue in that spirit. I respect folks like you and Eric, Swordsman53, Marvin the Martian, and others who I have had private conversations with or have come to know as fair and loving people. But how many times should we go over the same ground, believing the straw-men and red-herrings that we naturally assume about each other..., and never resolve because we are continuously going over the same things.

I am guilty, and intent on changing my participation in this. There is a better way.

Eph 4:1-6 KJV I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, (2) With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; (3) Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. (4)There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; (5) One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (6) One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Secondly brother I would like to point this out once again:

Principal 2: Reformed theology is a concept of apologetics and polemics. Because of this, there is an internal law within the theology that establishes two things. 1) The theology is not blind but tries to establish a rational point of view that is legitimate and found in scripture. 2) It always obeys it's internal tendency in criticizing, from it's own point of view, the systems that assault or attack it. Thus, following the principal of grace, the tendency of the theology is to be persuasive without wavering or contradiction within the apologetic.

In other words, the hardheadedness of the Calvinist and the reason that you find them that way, is because the theology is grounded in biblical principals and that drives the Calvinist to state the apologetic with authority. Whether this is seen as right or wrong is not the point. But the point being this, it is inherent in the theology because it is based upon a proper biblical foundation to defend itself against all other theologies, whether or not they are right or wrong, seeking to be logical, rational and consistent. This is inherent in the theology, and once recognized then the Calvinist approach can be modified to be less hardheaded and more patient in the apologetic. My advice to the Arminians is not to adopt a more hardheaded approach to the Calvinist, but to approach with the same confidence in their theology and be more patient with the Calvinist, pointing out the differences in love. Become examples of the Christianity you state in your apologetic, rising above the stubborn and hardheaded Calvinist, gaining them in love. Or at least, gaining common ground in love.

1Co 13:4-8 KJV Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, (5) Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; (6) Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; (7) Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. (8) Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

I have been convicted of this lately, and so I speak from my heart. I apologize for assuming the role of preaching and teaching. :medium-smiley-010:

[TigerBunny]

This is an interesting denominational tree. You can click on each branch to get a sub category listing. I have not studied this extensively yet so I will explore it as well. I have seen an excellent expanded denominational tree but for the life of me i cannot remember where it was.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Christian_denomination_tree_(categories)

Very cool...thank you Trav.

[JBaker45]

Hey thanks Trav.

I'm going to print this out :smile:

[Tallen]

It took some digging but here is one of the best sources I can provide. (monergist better hide himself as he will not be able to take this)

http://www.thearda.com/Denoms/Families/

I had a "tree" somewhere that outlined particular mainline denominations, mine was one of them. And it had the RCC and all of it's divisions and cults as well. It was fragmented and confusing to say the least. At times there were Arminian Presbyterians and Calvinist Wesleyans, and the Baptist are on both ends of the spectrum and everywhere in between. And all denominations had suffered divisions and coming back together and realigning with other groups, it seemed.

I was looking for that this weekend, but couldn't find it. If I do find it, I'll scan it and post it. :medium-smiley-140:

[Tallen]

This is a good one here Trav, thanks.