Chesterton on Determinism, Calvinism, and Commentary Thereon

This was also not my understanding of Arminian belief either, in fact, quite the opposite. I guess it wasn't really explained to you then. That has been the traditional main thrust of Arminian theology since Jacobus Arminius developed it.

Well, maybe you are right, or maybe the Church I attended didn't believe it this way, or I sure would have heard it. I attended the denomination's Christian College too, and it wasn't taught that way. Interesting to say the least.

And by denying that Christ actually paid the price for our sins, the Biblical problems for Arminian theology continue to stack up.

Wow, for someone who grew up in Arminian theology this is so foreign to me! Never once did I hear that. I was paying attention too! :-) I am astounded at what I have been reading here concerning Arminian belief. Churches must not all go by every tenet of it or something, because honestly, I have never heard of several of these things.

One of the attacks of the Arminian against the Calvinist is that the Calvinist God is not "loving" because He did not die for every last sin of every last man, woman, and child that ever lived. They define love in terms of universalism. They make it so that God must have done such and so in order to be truly perceived by His creation as "loving".

Thanks for the clarification.

As to the above statement, I will say that of all of the years I was a member of an Arminian Church I never heard that, thank goodness. After reading all of these things on Arminians here, I wonder what Church actually teaches these things. I never heard any of them, honestly.

I don't like this new structure they have. I miss a number of responses from people myself.

”After reading all of these things on Arminians here, I wonder what Church actually teaches these things. I never heard any of them, honestly.”

I never knew there were different theologies. I just thought there were some who believed you could lose your salvation and others who didn’t. And then there were the Catholics. But once I did some investigating I’ve found there’s far more to it as I believe you are starting to realize. That shows a seeking heart.

Most churches today hold shades of Arminian views. To make it more complicated, many doctrines such as the Arminian view of “once save always save” mirrors the Calvinistic view of “perseverance of the saints” although they are not the same thing. I believe this mirroring of doctrine is because there are irrefutable verses in the scriptures for which any fair minded scholar has to accept. It also clouds the differences in theologies which require carefully sorting out and may be why you don’t believe you’ve heard the Arminian view. But the subtlety exists.

I’ll use my Southern Baptist church for example. Consider this view from their statement of faith:

Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end.

Calvinism would completely agree with the first sentence. But to says Election is “consistent” with the “free agency of man” is to negate God’s sovereignty, contradict the first sentence, and introduces the Arminian belief into the church. It is not “election” if man chooses. The Southern Baptist rarely goes on to further define anything and never says HOW it is consistent. Just that it is. People ignore solid doctrinal understanding in lewd of just running off to preach the word. (BTW-the Southern Baptist are starting to question their doctrinal stances as more and more are splitting into Arminian/Calvinists sides.

Since the Arminian view is the most popular view today you are most likely subject to it unless you attend a Reformed church. You just probably don’t know it.

May I nominate drstevej for RM?

"Churches must not all go by every tenet of it or something, because honestly, I have never heard of several of these things."

Well, to be perfectly honest, Arminian Theologians are of one mind only on what the Atonement DOES NOT mean -that Christ received the punishment for the sins of those for whom he died.

I'm pinging "the Grammarian" to help you understand just why it is that you, as an Arminian, are NOT supposed to believe that Jesus received the punishment for the sins of those for whom he died.

He might also give reason as to why you have not heard this in your church -even when paying attention.

Of course, since Arminian theology is rather diverse in a positive declaration of what you, as an Arminian, are supposed to believe, I don't know if he can be of much help there.

Jean

"Churches must not all go by every tenet of it or something, because honestly, I have never heard of several of these things."

That's because, ladyinred, many Arminian churches prefer not to get too deep into controversial doctrines like these, holding with the Salvation Army that we as Christians are to live by "deeds, not creeds." I personally think we do our brothers and sisters a disservice by not discussing these sorts of things with them in our preaching, but that is the predominant view among pastors.

Well, to be perfectly honest, Arminian Theologians are of one mind only on what the Atonement DOES NOT mean -that Christ received the punishment for the sins of those for whom he died.

Imagine my surprise to be pinged out of the blue by Jean.

Here is a diagram that attempts to explain the difference between the different theories of the atonement. The problem Arminians have with accepting Penal Substitutionary Theory (which some Calvinists harp on as though it were actually part of the gospel) is that it forces a view of limited atonement as a logical consequence. Arminians universally believe that Christ died to "taste death for every man," as Hebrews 2:9 puts it. In attempting to explain the Atonement, Arminians prefer to rely on multiple theories to explain different facets of it--just as the Biblical authors did (compare Paul's language in describing the Atonement in Romans 3 and that of the author of Hebrews throughout that epistle, for example). Calvinists prefer to focus exclusively on Penal Substitutionary Theory, and sometimes, as a result, Arminians emphasize another theory, usually the Priestly-Sacrificial or Moral Governmental Theories, at the expense of using the Penal Substitutionary Theory.

I'm pinging "the Grammarian" to help you understand just why it is that you, as an Arminian, are NOT supposed to believe that Jesus received the punishment for the sins of those for whom he died.

That would be because it forces conclusions untenable to the Arminian understanding of God, namely that the God Who is Love hates some people (even people his own loved ones love) and damned them to hell without regard to any sense of mercy or compassion. It also inculcates the belief that God does not save people, but has already saved all those whom he plans to save (even if they don't know it yet). Thus, you get the consequence that Christians aren't being saved by God at a particular point in time, but are simply realizing that they have already been saved (which smacks of Gnosticism, the original New Age religion, to me).

He might also give reason as to why you have not heard this in your church -even when paying attention.

As far as it goes, you likely haven't heard anything about this in your church because many Arminians 1) prefer not to discuss that point of systematic theology at all, or 2) because your church actually does use Penal Substitutionary Theory in its descriptions of the Atonement, but denies the logical consequence that would derive from it, namely, that Christ died only for the elect (limited atonement).