Arminian vs. Calvinistm

[RadicallyTransformedMom]

I know that Wesleyans are Arminian and not Calvinistic. I was wondering if anyone would be interested in discussing the differences in theology and talking about why we believe what we believe. Does anyone have a good grasp on Arminian Theology? Anybody have good links we can go to our any charts/graphs that show Arminian and Calvinism Side by side? Lets discuss..

[Marycita]

I love this topic :)

I don't know of any links at the moment...but a good book is Arminian Theology by Olson :)

[MrJim]

I love this topic :)

I don't know of any links at the moment...but a good book is Arminian Theology by Olson :)

Hey I just got that in the mail yesterday, recommended from here (http://arminianbaptist.blogspot.com/2008/02/ten-myths-about-arminian-theology.html):thumbsup:

I don't think people really know what Arminius taught~just what they think he taught (course I find that out about a lot of things;) )

[GraceSeeker]

I know that Wesleyans are Arminian and not Calvinistic. I was wondering if anyone would be interested in discussing the differences in theology and talking about why we believe what we believe.
I've had this conversation so many times in my life that I've grown weary of it. But, I know that it is probably the first time for many who frequent the WP. So, if I can be of some assistance with particular questions I'll be glad to try. Might I hope that this not be seen as an effort to prove one right and the other wrong -- the way far too many of these conversations go -- but an attempt to learn what is being said by each and why. Remember, Wesley himself said that he was within a hair's breadth of Calvinism. It is a false dichotomy to present Wesley-Arminianism and Calvinism as being antithetical to one another.



Hey I just got that in the mail yesterday, recommended from here (http://arminianbaptist.blogspot.com/2008/02/ten-myths-about-arminian-theology.html):thumbsup:

I don't think people really know what Arminius taught~just what they think he taught (course I find that out about a lot of things;) )


Be careful in the way you equate Methodism with Arminian theology. James Arminius was himself a Calvinst, and then later proposed some ideas that are in all probablity heretical. However, some of his critique of the TULIP branch of Calvinism that began to obfiscate Calvin's original teachings was particularly good and Wesley borrowed heavily from them in creating a uniquely Methodist theology that is not truly Arminian, but Wesley-Arminian.


Also, there actually are a few Calvinistic Methodists; George Whitefield would be among the most notable of them.

[MrJim]

Be careful in the way you equate Methodism with Arminian theology. James Arminius was himself a Calvinst, and then later proposed some ideas that are in all probablity heretical. However, some of his critique of the TULIP branch of Calvinism that began to obfiscate Calvin's original teachings was particularly good and Wesley borrowed heavily from them in creating a uniquely Methodist theology that is not truly Arminian, but Wesley-Arminian.


Also, there actually are a few Calvinistic Methodists; George Whitefield would be among the most notable of them.

What do you see as the breaking points between true arminianism and weslyan arminianism?

[MrJim]

http://bestsmileys.com/bumping/3.gif

[GraceSeeker]

:confused: so you are just going on heresay on Arminianism~maybe you should give him a fair shake?

What makes you think that I haven't given him a fair shake? If you think about it, all I know of Jesus is also hearsay, but I think I have given him a fair shake.

On the other hand, I have read some of Arminius' actual writings. Just not in depth. You can check them out for yourself here: http://www.ccel.org/a/arminius/?show=worksBy and http://wesley.nnu.edu/arminianism/arminius/index.htm.


Jacobus Arminius - Dutch Reformed theologian

Jacobus Arminius (aka Jacob Arminius, James Arminius, and his Dutch name Jacob Harmenszoon) (October 10, 1560–October 19, 1609), was a Dutch theologian, best known as the founder of the anti-Calvinistic school in Reformed Protestant theology, thereby lending his name to a movement which resisted some of the tenets of Calvinism — Arminianism. The early Dutch followers of Arminius' teaching were also called the Remonstrants, after they issued a document containing five points of disagreement with classic Calvinism, entitled Remonstrantiœ (1610). Arminius became a professor of theology at Leiden in 1603, and remained there for the rest of his life. The theology of Arminianism was not fully developed during Arminius' time, but was systematized after his death and formalized in the Five articles of the Remonstrants in 1610. The works of Arminius (in Latin) were published at Leiden in 1629, and at Frankfort in 1631 and 1635. After his death the Synod of Dordrecht (1618–1619) judged his theology and its adherents anathemas and published the five points of Calvinism (later knows as TULIP) as a point-by-point response to the five points of the Arminian Remonstrants

He was particularly at odds with John Calvin's emphasis on unconditional election and irresistible grace. And this is the area where I believe he provides the greatest insight and benefit. Arminianism's strong emphasis on free-will, salvation for all, and resistible grace, continued to be influential even after Arminius, finding perhaps its strongest proponent in John Wesley, hence the two are linked together.

Arminius believed that Christ died for all, not just the elect. However, he also believed that Christ died as a payment for sin. Now, if he died for all as a payment for sin, then are not the sins of all paid for? Arminius would say, "Yes." But he would also then assert that all are not saved, only those who believe. There is in that an inherent conflict that Arminius never resolved and would not be resolved in his lifetime.



Lastly, it is my understading from readings of Christian historians, that one thing that Arminius did eventually do was to actually question the fullness of Jesus' diety. It is on this point that I concur with those who find some of his teachings heretical. But, you are right this is hearsay, I could not tell you what passage of his writings others base that view on. I also do not plan to spend a great deal of time searching for it. If it is not true, I shall be glad to have some one correct me on this or if another wish to affirm it, I will be equally glad to have another show me wherein it is that Arminius said such things.


As for the major issue at stake between Arminianism and Calvinism is actually not divine election but the sovereignty of God. For if men have free will, then is God truly sovereign? I would hold that God still is. I am not sure that Ariminius does (though I know that Wesley does). The Calvinists argues for the necessity of the fall as a part of God's foreordering of the world to provide for atonement of the elect in Christ. Arminius argues that this makes God the author of sin and thus rejects the necessity of the fall, primarily because people have free will to make choices. Thus any act of wickedness is a result of human choice and not of God's sovereignty. And herein is where even Jesus has to be more human than divine for Arminius, for Arminius needs a human agent to keep the divine covenant and if Jesus is fully God he sees that as an overpowering of the human will. On this I disagree with him. I believe that Jesus is both fully God and fully human and that the will God the Son has is his own unique from God the Father. Thus, it is not a question about human will versus divine will but of the will of Jesus (God the Son) versus the will of God the Father. Shall they be the same or shall they be different? With Arminius I believe that Jesus had a real choice and chose to obey. But I don't see how this in anyway diminishes the fullness of Jesus' diety.

[GraceSeeker]

What do you see as the breaking points between true arminianism and weslyan arminianism?

I don't think I can adquately answer the question as I've only studied Wesley and his writings and have never studied the works of James Arminius except to give them a cursiory glance. But that itself would be one reason that I would suggest to you that Methodists are not Arminians, but Wesley-Arminians, because we don't actually study Arminianism at all but just Wesley who was influences as much by Luther and Calvin as he was by Arminius.

[MrJim]

I don't think I can adquately answer the question as I've only studied Wesley and his writings and have never studied the works of James Arminius except to give them a cursiory glance. But that itself would be one reason that I would suggest to you that Methodists are not Arminians, but Wesley-Arminians, because we don't actually study Arminianism at all but just Wesley who was influences as much by Luther and Calvin as he was by Arminius.

:confused: so you are just going on heresay on Arminianism~maybe you should give him a fair shake? I don't know much about him either; just figured it was somewhat Weslyan or something. I come from an anabaptist/mennonite background. Mennonite folks aren't known for "systematic theology" though they tend to be arminian/weslyan~anything but calvinist ;)

Anyhow Marycita mentioned Olsen's book~the author speaks highly of Methodists quoting from John Wesley to Thomas Oden; be interesting to have you review it.

[GraceSeeker]

Anyhow Marycita mentioned Olsen's book~the author speaks highly of Methodists quoting from John Wesley to Thomas Oden; be interesting to have you review it.

Indeed, it might be interesting. I'll have to add that to my get around to someday list. Mind you, that list is in only the low 200s, but it does seem to grow faster than books are taken from it.


---------------------


Note: I addressed the other part of your post separately, but for unknown reasons it got posted above.

[dayhiker]

Hi,
Calvinism never made much sense to me. TULIP desn't even sound Biblical as they phrases they use I don't find in the Bible.
Graceseeker I like they way you worded your posts on the topic.

blessings
dayhiker