The 5 Articles of Remonstrance (Arminianism)

atpollard

Active Member
The Five Articles of Remonstrance were presented in 1610. They were put forth by followers of Jacobus Arminius in disagreement with and as alternatives to the prevailing interpretations within the Dutch Reformed Church.

  1. Conditional Election: Arminians believe God's election of individuals for salvation is based on foreseen faith and perseverance.
  2. Universal Atonement: Christ's death on the cross is considered sufficient for the sins of all people, not just the elect, but salvation is only applied to those who believe and persevere.
  3. Human Inability: While humans cannot achieve saving faith on their own, they are not inherently totally depraved. God's grace is necessary, but humans can respond to it.
  4. Resistible Grace: God's grace is not irresistible; it can be resisted and rejected by individuals.
  5. Uncertainty of Perseverance: While believers are called to persevere, they can, in principle, fall from grace.

This is the origin of "Arminianism" ... the champions of "Free Will" over "Divine Sovereignty" in Human Salvation (sotieriology).

The Synod of Dort was held in Dordrecht (Dort) in 1618-1619 to address the theological disputes surrounding the rise of Arminianism. It resulted in the Canons of Dort (later called the "Five Points of Calvinism" or "Doctrines of Grace"), which solidified the Reformed understanding of salvation and rejected the Remonstrance. I only offer this to point out that the 5 points of "TULIP" owe their existence to the 5 Remonstrances listed above which came first and started the conversation about "HOW DOES GOD SAVE?" that still rages on today.

That makes the Remonstrances worth knowing and worthy of discussion.
 

This is from another thread on our forum that I reposted here so we can all see the differences between Soteriology of determinists and non determinists.​


The following will compare the soteriology of Arminianism with Calvinism. Calvinism soteriology is most often associated with the acronym TULIP while Arminian soteriology does not have a universally accepted acronym.


This is the one point that both agree on. As a consequence of the fall, mankind is totally depraved. This does not mean he is as bad as he can possibly be. But it does mean that he is incapable, in his own efforts, of coming to God for salvation. Apart from the working of God’s grace, there can be no salvation.

Arminian soteriology holds to a conditional election. God elects, or chooses, all of those who respond in faith to his gift of salvation. We are able to respond, not because of something innately in us, but because of the enabling of the Holy Spirit via prevenient grace. The logical progression of salvation starts with the working of the Holy Spirit, enabling faith; a human response to the offer of salvation; and then regeneration.

Calvinist soteriology holds to what they call an unconditional election. That God sovereignly chooses some for salvation, independently of anything that the one chosen may believe or do. The logical ordering in salvation starts with God choosing those who will be saved; then regenerating and granting faith to the chosen, and then faith is exercised by the chosen and regenerated.

Arminianism holds to unlimited atonement. Christ’s atoning work on the cross was for all people, although it is effective only for those who believe. This is not universalism. While the atonement was for all, only those who believe receive its benefit.


Calvinism, on the other hand, generally holds to limited atonement. Christ’s atoning work on the cross was only for the elect. Atonement is only available for those God has foreordained to salvation. Some Calvinists reject this and accept unlimited atonement. This is also the point at which Lutherans disagree with Calvinists, rejecting limited atonement.

Arminian soteriology argues that the prevenient grace of God that is given to the unbeliever enables faith. Salvation is then offered as a gift that may either be accepted or rejected. The work of the Holy Spirit is resistible.

In contrast, Calvinism holds to irresistible grace. The Holy Spirit works in the life of the elect to bring them into a relationship with Christ. This working of the Holy Spirit is irresistible, all of the foreordained will come to faith.

This is the point that divides Arminians. We all believe that those who persist in their faith will be saved in the end. Some believe that all true believers will persist. Others accept the possibility that true believers have the ability to turn their backs on the grace of God. And, as a result, lose their salvation.

As you can see, there are some significant differences in how John Calvin and Jacob Arminius, and their respective followers, view the doctrine of salvation. But more significant than these differences is how they view the character of God. While both view God as sovereign, they understand the sovereignty of God in different ways. For the Calvinist, sovereignty implies complete and total control of everything that happens in the creation. If anyone is able to perform some action or make some decision that is not at God’s direction, then God is not sovereign.


This issue of this understanding of God’s sovereignty is what led Jacob Arminius to reject the soteriology of Calvinism. He saw divine determinism (God determines everything) as making God the author of sin. And that, to him, removed any real responsibility for sin from humanity. If a person can only act in accordance with God’s decrees, then when they sin it is a result of God’s decree; it is what God wanted them to do. For Arminius, God was sovereign over all of his creation. But that sovereignty included God’s permissive will, allowing humanity to act at odds with God’s desired will. But even as God allows evil, he uses it to accomplish his purpose. Our human choices are never unexpected or allowed to interfere with God’s purpose in creation.

The other issue Arminius had with the Calvinism of his day is in their related doctrine of predestination. Calvin modeled his doctrine of predestination after Augustine. God has chosen some to salvation prior to creation, irrespective of anything the individual might be or do. God seemingly arbitrarily chooses some to salvation. Some Calvinists will also argue that God has specifically chosen the rest of humanity to an eternity in hell. Others argue against that double predestination, but the result is the same. If you are not among the chosen, you are among the damned. To Arminius, this pictured God as a monster; creating some humans with no actual hope of escaping from the fires of hell.

Instead, Arminius, appealing to the Scripture as well as the early church fathers, argued that God loves all of humanity. An that he enables everyone to believe. Those that he foreknows will respond in faith he elects, while those who do not are condemned to damnation. But that condemnation is a result of a rejection of God’s grace, not an arbitrary action on God’s part. The Calvinist will argue that my choice to accept God’s offer of grace is an action on my part. Thus making salvation at least partly based on my own efforts. But Arminius responded that a free gift received, is still a free gift. My accepting the gift does not in any way constitute an earning of that gift on my part.

Calvinists accuse Arminians of focusing on human free will, although they also claim to accept it after a fashion. But Arminius’ use of human free will was not to elevate humanity. Rather it was to make them responsible for their own sin, rather than making God responsible for it. Salvation is no less a work of God because I have the ability to accept or reject it.

hope this helps !!!!
 
This might be a good time to talk about the differences between Calvinism and Reformed theology.

This has lately been the case for the terms “Calvinistic” and “Reformed.” Many may think they mean about the same thing, but they really have different senses and connotations.

The term “Calvinists” has been employed disparagingly by Roman Catholics, as if it denoted an aberrant sect of Christendom more devoted to following one man, John Calvin, than remaining part of the true, universal or catholic church. While that was not Calvin’s own view or intention, it might be a fair criticism of some of his later admirers.

The term “Calvinist,” in general, is probably most widely used and understood for Christians with a high view of the sovereignty of God, especially with respect to the topic of “soteriology” (the doctrine of salvation). Long after Calvin left his mark, the Dutch Reformed churches formally refuted a challenge to their theology known as the Remonstrance, of which Jacobus Arminius was a champion, from whom Arminianism takes its name. The Arminian challengers stated their beliefs, in opposition to the Dutch Calvinists, under five points. From this arose the masterful rebuttal of the Canons of Dort. Its substance is now known popularly as the Five Points of Calvinism. Those points may be remembered by the acronym TULIP—fittingly, the national flower of the Netherlands.

T otal Depravity (our need of grace)
U nconditional Election (the election of grace)
L imited Atonement (the price of grace)
I rresistible Grace (the attraction of grace)
P erseverance of the Saints (the triumph of grace)*

These five points are not all that Calvin or consistent Calvinists teach about salvation, much less about many other topics in theology. However, they are likely what most people have in mind by the term Calvinism. They cannot really be understood properly apart from the related subjects of predestination and divine providence. Calvin’s writings contain much excellent material for our edification in all these matters.

The term “Reformed,” in general, has far more extensive connotations. It spans more centuries than Calvin’s time, encompasses a host of great theologians besides Calvin, and brings to mind many more topics of Christian theology and practice. Calvinism may be considered a subset of the Reformed tradition.

The Reformed tradition is the product of the Protestant Reformation in general. Sometimes the Reformed tradition is contrasted with traditional Lutheran theology, though they have much in common. Conspicuous areas of difference are details concerning our understanding of the Lord’s Supper and the proper outward form of Christian worship.

Certain ideas are generally associated with Reformed theology, ideas not necessarily brought to mind by the term Calvinism. We can suggest five as examples, though the list is surely longer and debatable.

• Covenant theology
• Confessional and catholic (traditional, orthodox) theology
• The Regulative Principle of Worship
• The means of grace (the Word, two sacraments, and prayer)
• The five solas of the Reformation (sola scriptura, solus Christus,
sola fide, sola gratia, soli Deo gloria)

Many believe that Reformed covenant theology necessitates infant baptism, as in the Westminster standards, but 17th-century Particular Baptists held a form of covenant theology more consistent with “credobaptism,” the baptism of believers only, and not their physical children. This particular form of covenant theology with credobaptism is represented, for example, by the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith—also known as the 1689—and the Baptist Catechism of 1693.

From all these considerations, we may observe that the terms Calvinistic and Reformed really should not be used interchangeably. Many churches today are, perhaps, Calvinistic, but not Reformed. Many using these labels for themselves unintentionally oppose things that those very labels entail.

If you know these things and have some acquaintance with all the terms found in this description, you will have a good grasp of the shared and distinctive ideas often associated with the terms Calvinistic and Reformed. https://heraldofgrace.org/calvinistic-and-reformed/

hope this helps !!!
 
Shared beliefs with Calvinists and Arminians outlined below. This has the potential to be a good thread @atpollard. Hopefully we can find some unity, not division. :) There is always hope right brother.

I found this article. Do you agree or disagree and what else would you add to the doctrines that they have in common ?

Lost in a thicket of Arminian and Calvinist debate,
we sometimes lose sight of the grand truths
we hold in common…


By Edward Fudge

Some Christians focus on points about which believers differ. Edward focuses on what they share in common. There is no getting around the fact that Calvinists and Arminians understand scriptural teaching in ways which are humanly irreconcilable. Yet even they share far more truth in common than either side frequently thinks. This article by Edward was first published in Christianity Today magazine.

Also available in pdf format:What Calvinism and Arminianism Have in Common

What does it mean that Jesus died for all? The question is beguilingly simple. You would not know from the face of it that the question has been at the center of a heated and sometimes vociferous debate. For almost two thousand years, Christians have struggled to understand the effect of Jesus’ death and the scope of its saving power. With the publication in recent months of a number of books by evangelicals on the fate of the unevangelized, larger questions about the scope of the Atonement are gaining renewed currency. Does “all” refer to individual human beings, or nationalities and peoples, or just the elect?

Within the Reformation mainstream, two contending viewpoints have emerged, which observers often label Calvinist (after John Calvin), on the one hand, and Arminian (after Jacob Arminius, an early Dutch opponent of Calvin) or Wesleyan (after John Wesley), on the other. On the Calvinist side of the debate, you have Augustine, Calvin, and their followers. They argue (with varying degrees of explicitness and forcefulness) that the “all” refers to the elect: Christ died to save only those whom the Father had predestined to eternal life.

On the Arminian side, represented also by Wesley, believers argue that Christ in his atonement intended to make salvation available to everyone. It is faith (or, in some versions, obedience) that makes the saving work complete. The debate includes a host of related questions. What are we to make of this preposition “for”? If Jesus died “for” every human ever born, can anyone finally be lost? Does a yes to that question mean Christ’s death was somehow ineffective? And just who are these “elect”? Does this scriptural term refer to an indeterminate and nameless mass of people (as Arminians would tend to argue), or does it describe specific individuals with faces (as Calvinists would suggest)? Do we speak of Jesus’ death making salvation possible for all people, or, as the traditional query phrases it, does a “particular” atonement necessarily exclude those who are not saved?

The question is also sometimes phrased in terms of those who have never heard of Jesus. Will they all be lost? If so, why? Because they never heard — or for some other reason? Does Scripture allow (or even encourage) one to conclude that, based on Jesus’ atonement, God might finally save still others who in life never knew what Jesus had done on their behalf?

For those who take Scripture seriously, these distinctions represent more than abstract theories. These “theories” express convictions. And they may collide with the convictions of other Christians — people as sincere and informed and committed as we are. When concern for people and for theological integrity seem to clash, the anguish only increases. Sometimes people from the different camps lose sight of their brothers or sisters in the doctrinal thicket.

I was trained through graduate school in the Arminian viewpoint as expressed by the Churches of Christ. Later, I studied under Calvinists at Covenant Theological Seminary in Saint Louis, Missouri. These queries thus reflect the honest uncertainties of one who has been the lone Arminian in a classroom of Calvinists and a suspected Calvinist in a fellowship where that term is no compliment. Today, some 20 years downstream [40 years in 2010], I am certain that neither “side” has the whole truth in its pocket and that no human analysis can fully contain or explain what God accomplished for sinners in Jesus of Nazareth.

Yet we can speak truthfully even when not exhaustively. Convinced that evangelicals of all stripes share more than they generally realize, I propose the following seven couplets as a modest attempt at bridge building. Of course, this is only a step. But perhaps we can at least survey the terrain, establish some boundaries, and drive a few stakes. Doing so is surely better than defending our doctrinal turf while firing volleys of proof texts at each other.

Couplet 1:

– Every accountable person deserves to be lost.
– No accountable person deserves to be saved.

On this point Scripture is transparently clear: “All …are under the power of sin…that…the whole world may be held accountable to God” (Rom. 3:9, 19). “[A]ll have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).
God requires absolute obedience, and not one of us has presented it. The mystery is not that some are finally lost but that any are finally saved. Every person finally lost will receive justice, whereas every person finally saved will receive mercy grounded only in its giver (Rom 1:18-20, 32, 2:5, 3:4-8).

There are important differences between Augustine and Pelagius, between Calvin and Arminius, between Whitefield and Wesley. But this is not one of them. Every careful Calvinist insists that God deserves no blame for the fate of the lost. Every careful Arminian affirms that God deserves all glory for the salvation of the redeemed. Stressing each of the two points in the couplet can help us minimize needless misunderstanding, define genuine differences with sharper clarity, and cultivate a fraternal climate in which to study jointly the Word of God.

Couplet 2:

– God takes no pleasure in the final destruction of any.
– God finds pleasure in the salvation of every person who is saved.

God finds no joy in the death of any sinner. “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?” he asks rhetorically in Ezekiel 18:23 (see also Eze. 18:32, 33:11). He is not vengeful or vindictive. The Creator dues not delight in the destruction of any person he has made, not even his enemies. He desires “all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). Whoever is finally lost will not see God smiling as a result. Indeed, the Son of God says, there is celebration in heaven over every sinner who repents (Luke 15:7, 10).



Couplet 3:

– No one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him or her.
– Every person whom the Father has given to Jesus will come.

These statements did not originate with Calvin, Augustine, or even the apostle Paul, but with Jesus himself (John 6:37, 44). The assurance that God is in control should stimulate courage rather than contention; it should inspire hope and not harangues. To know that God has a plan and a people emboldens us to proclaim the gospel to every person we meet (Acts 18 : 9-10) . What God initiated in eternity he will consummate in his own good time (Eph. 1:1-14; Rom. 8:28-31).
If we recoil at the prospect of divine sovereignty, as though God’s gracious choice of some requires his unilateral rejection of others (a notion sometimes described as “double predestination”), we may rejoice that Scripture here is “splendidly illogical,” to borrow a phrase from biblical commentator A. M. Hunter. For, as Hunter notes, “the opposite of election is not predestination to destruction; it is unbelief a self-incurred thing.” Many Calvinists urge the same point. Instead of charging them with “doublespeak,” Arminians should welcome the unexpected common ground and rejoice. Until one claims to know everything personally, there is room to tolerate paradox in others. The hallmark of a Christian is not logic, but love. The proclamation of God-who-acts-to-save is as old as Exodus and as relevant as next Sunday’s sermon in our day of positive-attitude platitudes and self-help schemes. It ignites holy boldness even as it smites our pride. That God is sovereign means that none can come to Jesus — despite our clever phrases, latest methods, and polished salesmanship — unless the Father draws him or her. At the same time, it assures us that every person the Father has given to Jesus will come — without exception, and despite our own faulty choices and often bumbling work. If prophets are mute, donkeys can speak. If disciples remain silent, the stones can cry out. If the church should prove unfaithful or disobedient, God’s plan still will see its intended end.

Couplet 4:

– The ultimate basis of condemnation is the lost person’s own works.
– The ultimate basis of salvation is the work of Jesus.

Calvinists and Arminians already agree that every person finally saved will enjoy salvation only because of what God did in Jesus. “No one comes to the Father,” said Jesus, “but by me” (John 14:6). “There is salvation in no one else” (Acts 4:12). All who “receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness” will do so “through the one man Jesus Christ” (Rom 5:17) . It is his “act of righteousness” alone that “leads to acquittal and life” (Rom 5: 18).
These truths apply equally to those who lived before Jesus and to those who lived after, to Jew as well as to Gentile, to those who hear the gospel and to those who do not. None will be saved except on the basis of the atonement Jesus has made. Salvation will be conclusively “to the praise of [God’s] glory (Eph 1:6, 12, 14). The mere presence of each redeemed human will attest throughout eternity to the “immeasurable riches of his grace” (Eph 2:7). On the other hand, all who ultimately perish in hell will do so despite the fact that Jesus died for sinners and despite the fact that he receives everyone who truly wishes to come.

Couplet 5:

– Salvation occurred objectively two thousand years ago in Jesus’ work.
– Salvation occurs subjectively as each person believes the gospel.

Jesus himself announced that he came “to save” the lost (Luke 19:10; John 12:47; 1 Tim 1:15). He accomplished his stated assignment and triumphantly proclaimed from the cross “It is finished” (John 19:30; Heb. 1:3). God scrutinized what Jesus had done and was satisfied (as foreshadowed in Isa. 53:11). Then, to confirm the mission accomplished, God raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 4:25). After he had made purification for sins, Jesus took his place at God’s right hand (Heb 1:3, 10:11-14). If we preach that Jesus’ death was the payment for our sins, we may also proclaim that his resurrection was God’s paid-in-full receipt.
All this occurred in the historical experience of Jesus, our substitute and Savior. God reconciled the world to himself in Jesus’ fleshly body (Col 1:19-22; 2 Cor 5:18-19). Salvation is not a theoretical possibility but a _fait accompli_. It is “the good news of [our] salvation” (Eph 1:13). We may speak of this finished aspect of Christ’s work as “objective” salvation. It happened once for all, outside us but for us, in the personal life and death of Jesus of Nazareth almost two thousand years ago.

On the other hand, every person who enjoys salvation in this life does so by a response of faith to God’s gracious call. Whatever the case in the age to come, no one can enjoy salvation now apart from hearing and believing the gospel. We may speak of this present participation in Christ’s work as “subjective” salvation.

Just as President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation and, by the stroke of his executive pen, freed every slave in the Confederate States effective January 1 , 1863, so Jesus, by his perfect act, effectively saved every human being who finally will enjoy eternal life. Yet just as no slave empirically enjoyed the benefits of Lincoln’s act until she or he heard and believed the good news of emancipation, so no redeemed sinner experientially enjoys Christ’s redemptive blessings now except through hearing and believing the gospel (1 Cor 1:18). Until women and men learn the good news of their salvation, they continue to live as if nothing has happened. They remain as they were — without hope, not knowing God, unaware of his forgiveness and favor. The gospel ministry is for the sake of such individuals, that they may obtain salvation in every sense, subjectively as well as objectively (2 Tim. 2: 10). Like Paul at Corinth, we need to declare the good news fearlessly and without ceasing, so long as God’s patience indicates that he still has others who do not know they have been reconciled in his Son (Acts 18:9-10; 2 Cor. 5:18-19; 2 Pet. 3:9).

Couplet 6:

– Every person finally lost will have knowingly rejected God’s goodness.
– Every person finally saved will have accepted God’s goodness as it was known to him or her.

Scripture speaks of some who perish “for lack of knowledge” or “by believing a lie” (Hos 4:6; 2 Thess. 2:8-10) This “knowledge” is relational as well as cognitive; it is not only intellectual but also moral and spiritual. Whoever rejects this “knowledge” does so by conscious choice and inevitably courts condemnation (John 3:19). Yet, because God is so just, and because Jesus’ saving work is so extensive and so powerful, the apostle Paul confidently affirms that only those who consciously reject God’s light will finally be lost (Rom 5:13-14, 18-21).
Not all who are finally lost will have rejected the gospel, at least not in this life. But even those will have consciously rejected knowledge of God in some form, whether in nature (Acts 14:17; Rom 1:19-25), conscience (Rom 2:15-16), or divine revelation (John 5:45-47). God’s judgment of condemnation will be manifestly just in every case (Rom. 2:5-12).

On the other hand, Scripture indicates that all those finally saved will have welcomed in a spirit of faith the light of God they had. “God is one,” Paul writes, “and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised because of their faith” (Rom 3:30). Abraham is the prime example of one who was justified by faith though neither Christian nor Jew, and with limited gospel understanding as well (Rom 4:9-22). Jesus had in mind those who hear when he said: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:15-16).

Couplet 7:

– No person is better for not hearing the gospel. – No person is injured by hearing the gospel.

Sometimes people mistakenly assume, upon learning that Jesus’ work saved all who are finally saved whether they hear the gospel or not, that those who never hear are somehow better as a result. That inference is neither necessary nor proper.
The ultimate rejection of God is in the rejection of the light of the gospel. For that reason, whoever willfully rejects Jesus incurs the greatest guilt (Heb 10:26-31). It does not follow, however, that those who gladly receive God’s dimmer rays before they learn of Jesus will reject the brightest light when it appears. Each heart remains the same regardless of the degree of light to which it is exposed (Luke 16:30-31; Rev 22:11). We may be sure that no person who rejects the gospel and is lost would have been saved if only that one had remained ignorant of Jesus. It is inconceivable that anyone who cries “yes” to God from the hopeless darkness will suddenly shout a defiant “no” when the bright light of the cross and the empty tomb burst finally into view.

Common ground

These seven couplets come short, of course, of providing a third alternative to Arminianism and Calvinism, although with cultivation by brighter minds they might furnish seeds for a biblical “via media”. Even so, they can serve a useful purpose. For they stake off common ground — to the surprise, at times, of participants all around — marking a safe and neutral area large enough for both groups to stand while growing together in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. After 450 years of constant controversy, perhaps that is no small step.
 
Couplet 1:

– Every accountable person deserves to be lost.
– No accountable person deserves to be saved.

On this point Scripture is transparently clear: “All …are under the power of sin…that…the whole world may be held accountable to God” (Rom. 3:9, 19). “[A]ll have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).
God requires absolute obedience, and not one of us has presented it. The mystery is not that some are finally lost but that any are finally saved. Every person finally lost will receive justice, whereas every person finally saved will receive mercy grounded only in its giver (Rom 1:18-20, 32, 2:5, 3:4-8).

There are important differences between Augustine and Pelagius, between Calvin and Arminius, between Whitefield and Wesley. But this is not one of them. Every careful Calvinist insists that God deserves no blame for the fate of the lost. Every careful Arminian affirms that God deserves all glory for the salvation of the redeemed. Stressing each of the two points in the couplet can help us minimize needless misunderstanding, define genuine differences with sharper clarity, and cultivate a fraternal climate in which to study jointly the Word of God.
I agree with this and it almost reminds me of the COMMON ground between "Total Inability" (Calvinism) and "Human Inability" (Arminianism) before you start to split hairs over the differences. It acknowledges the power of sin BEFORE we are "IN CHRIST" ... a powerful reality in many of our lives that God's grace bears witness to.
 
I venture 90 percent of the people here are neither calvinist nor arminian.

So these threads are in essence nonsensical. have no bases of merit, and really does not effect most people
At least you now have an opportunity to read the 5 articles of Remonstrance and decide whether you agree or disagree with each.
  • If you agree with all, then you can say you ARE an Arminian.
  • If you agree with most you can say you lean towards Arminianism.
  • If you disagree with all, you might want to look up the 5 points of Calvinism and read them.
 
I agree with this and it almost reminds me of the COMMON ground between "Total Inability" (Calvinism) and "Human Inability" (Arminianism) before you start to split hairs over the differences. It acknowledges the power of sin BEFORE we are "IN CHRIST" ... a powerful reality in many of our lives that God's grace bears witness to.
ditto and unfortunately forums have a habit on focusing on what divides us ( I'm guilty ) rather than what unites us as believers in the body of Christ.
 
At least you now have an opportunity to read the 5 articles of Remonstrance and decide whether you agree or disagree with each.
  • If you agree with all, then you can say you ARE an Arminian.
  • If you agree with most you can say you lean towards Arminianism.
  • If you disagree with all, you might want to look up the 5 points of Calvinism and read them.
I reject all 5 points of tulip

I reject that we can lose salvation (fall from Grace.

New flash. The bible and biblical truth was around long before TULIP and Arminian response was written down.

If your trying to pit everyone down to either be arminian or calvinist. You will never be able to have any reasonable debate. because you will never be able to hear what the other person is saying.
 
Just for the record, I was talking about the Remonstrances in post 1 (which are the OPPOSITE of TULIP) and just offering a friendly suggestion. Since you take EVERYTHING I say as offense, I will stop responding to you to increase the peace.
You suggested that if I agreed with all 5 I was an Arminian. (even if I did. it does not mean I am an Arminian, but I already stated I was not an Arminian.

Even though I told you I was not Arminian or Calvin.

maybe try to reword what you are saying. and stop assuming, when you do. You tend to offend people.
 
I reject all 5 points of tulip

I reject that we can lose salvation (fall from Grace.

New flash. The bible and biblical truth was around long before TULIP and Arminian response was written down.

If your trying to pit everyone down to either be arminian or calvinist. You will never be able to have any reasonable debate. because you will never be able to hear what the other person is saying.
I don't think thats what he is doing and just wants to clarifiy the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism. There is also Provisionism and other types of belief systems in between and most fall somewhere in between the 2 extremes in their theology.

For example I now lean more toward provisionism than Arminianism but there are some things I disagree with in both camps. But that in no way makes me right and the others wrong.

I do believe on the essentials most of us in those camps as evangelicals are in agreement. The only exception would be on the extreme when a person refers to the gospel as tulip. The gospel is essential to be agreed upon.
 
I don't think thats what he is doing and just wants to clarifiy the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism. There is also Provisionism and other types of belief systems in between and most fall somewhere in between the 2 extremes in their theology.

For example I now lean more toward provisionism than Arminianism but there are some things I disagree with in both camps. But that in no way makes me right and the others wrong.

I do believe on the essentials most of us in those camps as evangelicals are in agreement. The only exception would be on the extreme when a person refers to the gospel as tulip. The gospel is essential to be agreed upon.
That's why I hate isms.

lets just talk to a person. listen to what they say, and then discuss differences.

I do not even know what provisionism is.. I would venture to say most people do not.. So lets talk to each other.

as for what he said, He called me an Arminian in another thread. hence why I made the comment i did, he was trying to prove his point or his accusation that I was arminian (in my view)
 
People get too caught up in labels, it's not a big deal.

All labels point to is ideas behind them.

Many people agree with Arminianism or Calvinism without knowing the term for it (or realizing it).
 
People get too caught up in labels, it's not a big deal.

All labels point to is ideas behind them.

Many people agree with Arminianism or Calvinism without knowing the term for it (or realizing it).
and many reject both. het the arminians call them calvinist, and the calvinist call them arminian. (I know I have been accused of both this very day)

and in doing so. just show the shallowness of their thinking
 
For those (like me) unfamiliar with the details of "Provisionism", Got Questions had this to say ...

The terms Provisionism and Provisionist are new by the standards of Christian theology. These labels have only been formally defined and used in the past few years. In broad terms, a Provisionist—someone who holds to Provisionism—holds a generally Arminian view of free will and salvation, with notable differences such as positive belief in eternal security. The main gist of Provisionism is the idea that the gospel is the Word of God, which is sufficient in itself, through the power of the Holy Spirit, to enable a response in all who hear God’s appeal to be reconciled to Him (John 6:63; Hebrews 4:12).​
The clearest differences between Provisionist doctrine and classical Reformed theology are seen in the concepts of total depravity and limited atonement. The doctrine of total depravity suggests all people are inherently sinful, such that they could not even want to be saved without a direct, predestined act of God. Provisionism counters that all people are sinful and responsible for their sin, but they are also responsible for answering God’s universal call for men to be saved (Titus 2:11). Limited atonement is a doctrine teaching that Christ only died for those God had designated as the elect. A Provisionist would reject this, saying that the Bible teaches that Christ died for all people (1 John 2:2), which is why God promises to save any who come to Him in faith (Romans 10:11–13; Revelation 22:17). The Provisionist holds that Christ genuinely desires all of humanity to be saved (Luke 5:32; 19:10; 1 Timothy 2:4–6; ).​
In effect, this means a Provisionist would also reject other Reformed doctrines such as irresistible grace.​
The main use of the term Provisionism comes from the writings of theologian Leighton Flowers. The term is also meant to describe the general approach to salvation held by most Southern and Independent Baptists. So far as Reformed doctrine is concerned, this means narrow disagreement on the subjects of total depravity and limited atonement, as well as the exact meaning of words like predestined and elect.​
Similar to the TULIP in Calvinism, Provisionism can be summarized with the acrostic PROVIDE (see https://soteriology101.com/about-2/statement-of-faith for more information):​
People sin: Which separated all from fellowship with God.​
Responsible: Able-to-respond to God’s appeals for reconciliation.​
Open door: For anyone to enter by faith. Whosoever will may come to His open arms.​
Vicarious atonement: Provides a way for anyone to be saved by Christ’s blood.​
Illuminating grace: Provides clearly revealed truth so that all can know and respond in faith.​
Destroyed: For unbelief and resisting the Holy Spirit.​
Eternal security: For all true believers.​
Christians have often debated the finer points of how human will and God’s sovereignty interact when it comes to salvation. Though the nuances of Provisionism may not be accepted by particular believers, its tenets are well within the realm of orthodox Christian theology.​
 
I venture 90 percent of the people here are neither calvinist nor arminian.

So these threads are in essence nonsensical. have no bases of merit, and really does not effect most people

I would agree that 90 percent of the people here don't really know what Calvin actually taught. If Calvinism is "Calvin", then you're exactly right.

As far as "nonsensical", I do believe the terms are generally understood relative to election. That is where the issue really begins. Everything is "fabricated" around how individuals see themselves relative to election.

Once a person accepts this, the arguments are meaningful. It does get frustrating to see untrained people claiming to know "absolutes" they don't really understand.
 
For those (like me) unfamiliar with the details of "Provisionism", Got Questions had this to say ...

The terms Provisionism and Provisionist are new by the standards of Christian theology. These labels have only been formally defined and used in the past few years. In broad terms, a Provisionist—someone who holds to Provisionism—holds a generally Arminian view of free will and salvation, with notable differences such as positive belief in eternal security. The main gist of Provisionism is the idea that the gospel is the Word of God, which is sufficient in itself, through the power of the Holy Spirit, to enable a response in all who hear God’s appeal to be reconciled to Him (John 6:63; Hebrews 4:12).​
The clearest differences between Provisionist doctrine and classical Reformed theology are seen in the concepts of total depravity and limited atonement. The doctrine of total depravity suggests all people are inherently sinful, such that they could not even want to be saved without a direct, predestined act of God. Provisionism counters that all people are sinful and responsible for their sin, but they are also responsible for answering God’s universal call for men to be saved (Titus 2:11). Limited atonement is a doctrine teaching that Christ only died for those God had designated as the elect. A Provisionist would reject this, saying that the Bible teaches that Christ died for all people (1 John 2:2), which is why God promises to save any who come to Him in faith (Romans 10:11–13; Revelation 22:17). The Provisionist holds that Christ genuinely desires all of humanity to be saved (Luke 5:32; 19:10; 1 Timothy 2:4–6; ).​
In effect, this means a Provisionist would also reject other Reformed doctrines such as irresistible grace.​
The main use of the term Provisionism comes from the writings of theologian Leighton Flowers. The term is also meant to describe the general approach to salvation held by most Southern and Independent Baptists. So far as Reformed doctrine is concerned, this means narrow disagreement on the subjects of total depravity and limited atonement, as well as the exact meaning of words like predestined and elect.​
Similar to the TULIP in Calvinism, Provisionism can be summarized with the acrostic PROVIDE (see https://soteriology101.com/about-2/statement-of-faith for more information):​
People sin: Which separated all from fellowship with God.​
Responsible: Able-to-respond to God’s appeals for reconciliation.​
Open door: For anyone to enter by faith. Whosoever will may come to His open arms.​
Vicarious atonement: Provides a way for anyone to be saved by Christ’s blood.​
Illuminating grace: Provides clearly revealed truth so that all can know and respond in faith.​
Destroyed: For unbelief and resisting the Holy Spirit.​
Eternal security: For all true believers.​
Christians have often debated the finer points of how human will and God’s sovereignty interact when it comes to salvation. Though the nuances of Provisionism may not be accepted by particular believers, its tenets are well within the realm of orthodox Christian theology.​
Thanks for posting that as some forums it’s considered heresy.
 
Back
Top Bottom