A survey

[JimfromOhio]

I realized that the Church I have been attending for years, a local church that belongs to Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches, which is basically Calvinist, more conservative than most Anabapists.

So I am doing a survey to see how other members aware of his/her church's doctrines.

Arminian doctrine is the term for a theological stance originating with James Arminius - His views include:
1). "Conditional Predestination" - which basically states that God predestines those He knows ahead of time will accept him; whereas Calvin taught an unconditional election;
2). "Free Will of Man" - a teaching that says that man is a free moral agent can actually choose God;
3). Unlimited Atonement - a teaching that Christ died for more than just the elect;
4). Resistible Grace - a teaching that says that since man is a free moral agent, if God calls him specifically to salvation, he can say no to God. and
5) - the most radical and troubling of all arminian doctrine: a teaching that you can lose your salvation, totally rejecting eternal security. They believe that you must live righteously if you are to retain your saved state. Through sin, a person who was once saved can lose it and be damned. This clearly violates the teachings of God's Word.

Calvinism on the other hand believes in five basic tenets forming the acronym "TULIP":
1) Total depravity - in man there dwells no good thing
2) Unconditional election - since man is totally depraved, election is not based on any merit whatsoever other than the eternal counsel of the will of God
3) Limited atonement - Christ died only for the elect
4) Irresistible grace - Every man who receives an "effectual call" by God's Spirit to salvation will be saved - you cannot refuse God.
5) Perseverance of the Saints - those saved by the power of God are eternally secure and will remain in a righteous condition because of it.

[Joykins]

I did not know GBC was Calvinist; it wasn't in their (elementary/jr. high) school theology curriculum.

My current church does not take a position on either of those things.

My personal beliefs are probably Arminian+ (in that I don't believe in predestination).

I find the idea of Limited Atonement and Total Depravity far more troubling than I find the thought of the possibility of rejecting your salvation.

[Willo]

I hold to Wesleyan theology, we sometimes has a mix of Calivnism, and Arminism

[Flynmonkie]

The church I attend does not seem to sit in either the Calvin or Arm camps. It sits smack in the middle where it should be ;) It is a SBC Baptist church of 3500+ members.

[Oxygen]

My Church teaches a blend of the two doctrines and mixes them up a little. Even though I voted Calvinist.

Here's how it would breakdown:

Total Depravity-Yes
Unconditional Election-Yes, in that God is the author and finisher of our faith. Everything is a gift from Him. Nothing is based on our merit.
Limited Atonement-No, The Bible says that Christ died for the sins of the World. He desires all men to come to Him. Why would he die only for a secret group called the Elect when the Bible says he died once for ALL???
Irresistable Grace-No, man can and often does refuse the Holy Spirit whisper that convicts them and points them to the Cross.
Perseverence of the Saints-Sort of, My church teaches OSAS. It's not QUITE the same thing as the P in the TULIP, but it is similar.

[Blazin4Christ]

I believe points 2-4 of the Arminian doctrine, where you have freedom of choice and so forth, but I do not believe GOd predestinates anybody to anything,

[Maeyken]

I don't think my church goes by either one of those... they both sound foreign to me.

[PlumTea]

My church is teaches the calvinist doctrine.

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, Jim

The church I attend would be Arminian, though it claims 2 points of Calvinism, I always remind them that at least they compare them self to the correct standard, drives some there nuts when I do that. :)

But I am a Calvinist and that makes for some pretty cool sunday school classes.

Peace to u,

Bill

[BBAS 64]

The church I attend does not seem to sit in either the Calvin or Arm camps. It sits smack in the middle where it should be ;) It is a SBC Baptist church of 3500+ members.

Good Day,Flyn

I will have to send Tom Nettles and Al Mohler out your way for a couple weeks... :D

Peace to u,

Bill

[Flynmonkie]

Hi BBAS!

Ok, and they are??? :scratch:

[TheologiaCrucis]

My church teaches 1,3,4,5 of Arminianism and 1 and 2 of Calvinism.... I think I remembered the numbers right. Anyway, this is what Lutheran churches teach. That one can lose hos or her salvation is entirely Biblical.

[mesue]

I realized that the Church I have been attending for years, a local church that belongs to Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches, which is basically Calvinist, more conservative than most Anabapists.

So I am doing a survey to see how other members aware of his/her church's doctrines.

Arminian doctrine is the term for a theological stance originating with James Arminius - His views include:
1). "Conditional Predestination" - which basically states that God predestines those He knows ahead of time will accept him; whereas Calvin taught an unconditional election;
2). "Free Will of Man" - a teaching that says that man is a free moral agent can actually choose God;
3). Unlimited Atonement - a teaching that Christ died for more than just the elect;
4). Resistible Grace - a teaching that says that since man is a free moral agent, if God calls him specifically to salvation, he can say no to God. and
5) - the most radical and troubling of all arminian doctrine: a teaching that you can lose your salvation, totally rejecting eternal security. They believe that you must live righteously if you are to retain your saved state. Through sin, a person who was once saved can lose it and be damned. This clearly violates the teachings of God's Word.

Calvinism on the other hand believes in five basic tenets forming the acronym "TULIP":
1) Total depravity - in man there dwells no good thing
2) Unconditional election - since man is totally depraved, election is not based on any merit whatsoever other than the eternal counsel of the will of God
3) Limited atonement - Christ died only for the elect
4) Irresistible grace - Every man who receives an "effectual call" by God's Spirit to salvation will be saved - you cannot refuse God.
5) Perseverance of the Saints - those saved by the power of God are eternally secure and will remain in a righteous condition because of it.

I take issue with both.
1 & 2 seem to counterdict each other in Arminian doctrine. And with Calvinism I have to disagree with the "L".
I'm a Calvaminian :D

[MrJim]

Bona fide calvinists will say there is no middle ground. Ya can't cafeteria this TULIP thing.

[daveleau]

I voted "other" simply because I don't find Scriptural support for either full Calvinism or Arminianism. I agree most with Calvin, but do not find Scriptural support for irresistable Grace as a commonly used tool of God. I see that He used it a few times, but most instances of Salvation are instances of choice by humans to choose to accept God's free gift. I do not support the infallibility of any theologian. There are some that are more correct than others, like Calvin, but even he makes too many blanket statements that limit God's ability and put God's actions into too small of a characterization. God does use irresistable grace, but there are many more instnaces of God allowing people to choose grace. The idea of irresistable grace as a full-time way to Salvation contradicts Scripture in too many places for me to support it in the way that Calvin does.

[mesue]

Bona fide calvinists will say there is no middle ground. Ya can't cafeteria this TULIP thing.
Yes I can, they were men. :D
It's the Bible you can't cafeteria.

[daveleau]

In regards to Calvin's TULIP:
1) Total depravity - in man there dwells no good thing
2) Unconditional election - since man is totally depraved, election is not based on any merit whatsoever other than the eternal counsel of the will of God
3) Limited atonement - Christ died only for the elect
4) Irresistible grace - Every man who receives an "effectual call" by God's Spirit to salvation will be saved - you cannot refuse God.
5) Perseverance of the Saints - those saved by the power of God are eternally secure and will remain in a righteous condition because of it.


1) I totally agree.
2) I totally agree that once we accept Christ's sacrifice, that nothing else is needed.
3) I totally agree and define the "elect" as all of humanity. Christ died for all of us, but we must accept the sacrifice.
4) I agree that God can use irresistable grace as a way to bring about His plan, but that God does not do this. If He did, our purpose here of glorifying Him would be moot and hollow. We'd be a bunch of robots following Him. This boils down to predestination and free will arguments.
5) I totally agree.

[Flynmonkie]

daveleau this is exactly how we are taught through our church. And I believe.

[ZiSunka]

Here's what I believe:

Calvinism and arminianism both have problems and neither is entirely correct. I believe that the source of the problems is that they are human doctrines created by humans who, although they certainly strove and struggled to get a grip on the incomprehensible concept of salvation through faith alone, they could only understand it through the filter of their own upbringings, educations and prejudices. No human being will ever be able to explain salvation through faith in Jesus Christ because our human minds can't grasp the realiies of it.

[JimfromOhio]

In regards to Calvin's TULIP:
1) Total depravity - in man there dwells no good thing
2) Unconditional election - since man is totally depraved, election is not based on any merit whatsoever other than the eternal counsel of the will of God
3) Limited atonement - Christ died only for the elect
4) Irresistible grace - Every man who receives an "effectual call" by God's Spirit to salvation will be saved - you cannot refuse God.
5) Perseverance of the Saints - those saved by the power of God are eternally secure and will remain in a righteous condition because of it.


1) I totally agree.
2) I totally agree that once we accept Christ's sacrifice, that nothing else is needed.
3) I totally agree and define the "elect" as all of humanity. Christ died for all of us, but we must accept the sacrifice.
4) I agree that God can use irresistable grace as a way to bring about His plan, but that God does not do this. If He did, our purpose here of glorifying Him would be moot and hollow. We'd be a bunch of robots following Him. This boils down to predestination and free will arguments.
5) I totally agree.

I agree.... I found that there will be hugh numbers of members will not agree with the Church's statement of faith (regarding to Calvism, etc). I am like you... I am kinda combine the two and leave the salvation theory to God. I just continue to witness and do my best to spread the Gospel as I know how.

[ZiSunka]

"effectual call"

What's that mean?

[JPPT1974]

Yes I can, they were men. :D
It's the Bible you can't cafeteria.

What does the bible mean that you can't cafeteria at?

[TheologiaCrucis]

What does the bible mean that you can't cafeteria at?

I think he menas that you can't pick and choose what you want to believe out of the Bible or claim that only parts are inspired. You must accept the whole thing as inspired and accept everything it says.

[daveleau]

What does the bible mean that you can't cafeteria at?

Theposter that said "you can't pick and choose as if in a cafeteria" (paraphrase) was saying that Calvin is 100% correct in his TULIP idea, and that it is fully supported by Scripture. According to that poster, since it is supported by Scripture, you can't pick and choose out of it.

Many disagree that it is supported by Scripture, hence why we disagree.


...and YES, I AM ready for some football!!! ;)

[JimfromOhio]

...and YES, I AM ready for some football!!! ;)

Me too !!!

Go Patriots !!!! :thumbsup:

Go Buckeyes !!!! :clap:

[CHARLES H]

The church I attend does not seem to sit in either the Calvin or Arm camps. It sits smack in the middle where it should be ;) It is a SBC Baptist church of 3500+ members.

i agree. i'm between the two.the only thing i disagree with in the first camp is losing your salvation.

[CHARLES H]

Me too !!!

Go Patriots !!!! :thumbsup:

Go Buckeyes !!!! :clap:

Go Texans

Go Texas

[eldermike]

As I talk to people number 4 seems to be the hard one for people to accept. I think a person under conviction can live a life of sin and turn to God in their last breath and be an eternal brother/sister in the Lord. It's biblical. What we tend to do is use our sense of timing to judge things. We talk about falling away, losing salvation, whatever, and it takes less than a flash, a microsecond to be a full saint. I have no idea what the last thought of any person was, but if it's Jesus, they are with Him now.

We are like the biblical example, we focus on the work but being there on payday is what Jesus is focused on.
I'm a Calvinists

[MrJim]

Having been both I would say it is man's attempt to fully explain the unexplainable. Man wants to have the pride to say they fully understand the plan and mind of God. Therefore mystery has to be explained away into legal/logical formulas.

[ZiSunka]

Having been both I would say it is man's attempt to fully explain the unexplainable. Man wants to have the pride to say they fully understand the plan and mind of God. Therefore mystery has to be explained away into legal/logical formulas.

I think that's what I said! :D

[MrJim]

I think that's what I said! :D


:doh: :blush:

[Stacey]

Don't think my church specifically teaches either. Or at least doesn't label it.

[arunma]

While my church is certainly tolerant of Arminians, we're known among Minnesota Baptists for being staunchly Calvinist. Actually, the first time I attended that church, I swore to a friend that I would never believe in Calvinism. And, well, I was clearly wrong. Not that I mind.

[aReformedPatriot]

While my church is certainly tolerant of Arminians, we're known among Minnesota Baptists for being staunchly Calvinist. Actually, the first time I attended that church, I swore to a friend that I would never believe in Calvinism. And, well, I was clearly wrong. Not that I mind.

haha. ;)

[seebs]

I am honestly unsure of much of this. I believe I accept the rulings of the Council of Trent; for instance, I definitely do not believe in double-predestination. I do not know exactly what happens, nor do I hope to find out very soon. I trust that God will be fair to all people, and I do not know exactly what would be fair...

Quakers have historically not believed Christians to have a monopoly on salvation through Christ. Like many Quakers, I believe that the Word reaches some people through different words than the ones I use, and I am unbothered by this. My faith tells me that, whoever is saved, is saved through Jesus. It is not my job to know exactly how this is accomplished.

[JPPT1974]

In my church, we talk about the Bible really, really all the time.
About living God's will and following His commandments.
As well as knowing the purpose of His will and promises for our lives.