# Why Call Them Arminians?



## CharlieJ (Mar 25, 2009)

This post is mostly about labeling. Particularly, it concerns the common labeling of American non-Calvinists as "Arminian." From my experience, very few people label themselves Arminian. The typical non-Calvinist Baptist or Bible church person, if at all knowledgeable about the issues, would probably say something like this: "I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian. Both sides err. Calvinists err especially at limited atonement, and Arminians err especially at the insecurity of the believer."

I think it is fair to say that Jacob Arminius would not recognize himself in the writings of Dave Hunt or Norman Geisler, much less in the typical pew-sitter. Wesley as well would laugh out loud to hear people like that called Arminians. Similarly, if I were to announce on this board that I was a 3 (or maybe even 4) point Calvinist, you would rightly respond that I am no Calvinist at all. So, why do we saddle people with labels they reject when they don't seem to fit that well anyway? Isn't it time for a new term, or at least a modified one?


----------



## MMasztal (Mar 25, 2009)

Well, using terms like Arminian and Calvinist saves a lot of time in not having to elucidate the beliefs of each group when having a discussion. The terms say alot about core beliefs or maybe what Biblical worldview they subscribe to.

Arminians generally do not know what that term means. In my expereince, most follks of the Arminian persuasion are theologically vapid either due to an anti-intellectual approach to Christianity (ex: fundie, legalistic Baptists) or because they lack and substantial knowledge of the Scriptures and/or hold them in low regard (ex: most Methodists).


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 25, 2009)

Semi-Pelagian...happy?

Arminian takes less time as you don't have to sit around explaining it


----------



## CharlieJ (Mar 25, 2009)

But if they are theologically vapid (nice vibrant word choice), then they can't really be Arminians, right? Arminianism is a sophisticated theological system. Almost all American Christians (except for conscious Arminians) repudiate at least one major point - insecurity of the believer. If someone is theological confused, or does not have a clear theological position, are we really helping by slapping a label on him? In reverse, wouldn't that be like calling anyone who believed in the sovereignty of God a Calvinist, even if they had never thought through the implications of that doctrine?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 25, 2009)

Then call them Arminian when it counts (it counts a lot in my region) and simply Semi-Pelagian when they are just involved in insipidness.


----------



## MMasztal (Mar 25, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> But if they are theologically vapid (nice vibrant word choice), then they can't really be Arminians, right? Arminianism is a sophisticated theological system.



Of course they can. "Sophisticated"?? Maybe, but Arminianism is an erroneous doctrine concocted by using selected portions of Scripture, often out of context. 

When you speak with the Arminian, or semi-Pelagian as Lady Flynt rightly noted, they typically can't provide an effective apologetic for their beliefs since Scripture clearly denies their core doctrines.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Mar 25, 2009)

We are born Arminian. It is grace that makes us Calvinists. 

Seriously, by default people adopt the idea of libertarian Free Will, and the idea that what God does He does for all alike. This is Arminianism at its core.

Most churches teach from an Arminian perspective, whether openly called such or not. Among them are most Baptist denominations, Methodist denominations, Wesleyan/Nazarenes, Pentecostal denominations, a majority of independent Bible churches, and I would add the Roman Catholics and liberal mainline churches at large. Most public evangelists and preachers are Arminian in their theology, e.g. Billy Graham, Rick Warren, all TV evangelists, etc., etc. _ad nauseum_.

If some are ignorant of the fact that they are _de facto _Arminians, it does not follow that the term is useless.


----------



## KMK (Mar 25, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> This post is mostly about labeling. Particularly, it concerns the common labeling of American non-Calvinists as "Arminian."



What do you mean by 'non-Calvinist'? 

I agree with you that labels are problematic and over-used. However, they cannot be avoided altogether. You had to use the label 'Calvinist' in order to ask whether we should use the label 'Arminian'.


----------



## ExGentibus (Mar 25, 2009)

"Arminian" is mostly a shorthand that we Calvinists use to describe a number of theological positions that range from true Arminianism (quite rare) to Pelagianism. Granted, I agree that the term is often used loosely and incorrectly to describe the beliefs of people who have no idea of who the Remostrants were, but once you dig their theology out with a few questions, they quickly prove to agree with 90% of the Remostrant Articles.


----------



## CharlieJ (Mar 25, 2009)

Gomarus said:


> Seriously, by default people adopt the idea of libertarian Free Will, and the idea that what God does He does for all alike. This is Arminianism at its core.
> 
> Most churches teach from an Arminian perspective, whether openly called such or not. Among them are most Baptist denominations, Methodist denominations, Wesleyan/Nazarenes, Pentecostal denominations, a majority of independent Bible churches, and I would add the Roman Catholics and liberal mainline churches at large. Most public evangelists and preachers are Arminian in their theology, e.g. Billy Graham, Rick Warren, all TV evangelists, etc., etc. _ad nauseum_.
> 
> If some are ignorant of the fact that they are _de facto _Arminians, it does not follow that the term is useless.



How can Roman Catholics be Arminian, when by definition Arminianism is a modification of Reformed theology? There were lots of Lutherans who disagreed with Calvinists on points of soteriology, but they weren't called Arminians. Thomas Aquinas and Augustine believed in predestination, but they are by no means Calvinists. 

My point is that the word Arminian, just like the word Reformed, has real historical meaning. Many of this people on the board would object to me saying, "Anyone who believes in unconditional election is Reformed." At least those same people should object to the use of "Arminian" to mean a person who believes in libertarian free will. It does not facilitate conversation. It places people in boxes where they really don't belong. 

One experience that opened my eyes to this was a Counterpoints book on eternal security. Michael Horton represented "classical" Calvinism and Norman Geisler represented "moderate Calvinism" (haha). There were two others, a Reformation Arminian and a Wesleyan Arminian. I think Geisler represents the Dispensational mainstream in America pretty well. All 3 of the other writers pointed out that Geisler isn't even remotely Calvinist. The 2 Arminians clearly stated that he wasn't even Arminian and that they didn't want to be associated with his position. One of the Arminians called him a semi-Pelagian!

Geisler, Ryrie, Zane Hodges, Dave Hunt, etc. all have doctrinal beliefs that distinguish them from real Arminians, whether Reformation or Wesleyan. There's no point in telling someone they are something that, historically, they aren't. 

I think Calvinists have a Calvinism vs. Arminianism complex. The truth is that there are a lot of theological systems out there that ask different questions and use different methods to come to different answers. We would be more respectable if we used labels responsibly and focused on issues. I can't imagine how a Thomist Roman Catholic would respond to being called an Arminian. He would probably laugh.


----------



## Zenas (Mar 25, 2009)

Jonathan Edwards recognized the labeling issues when prefacing his _Freedom of the Will_. I concur with his assessment in that we refer to non-Calvinists are Arminians out of convenience. We do not literally mean that they hold to the five points of the Remonstrants, but rather they hold to some, and they emphatically deny the points of Dort.


----------



## CharlieJ (Mar 25, 2009)

KMK said:


> I agree with you that labels are problematic and over-used. However, they cannot be avoided altogether. You had to use the label 'Calvinist' in order to ask whether we should use the label 'Arminian'.



Right, I'm not saying don't use labels. I'm saying don't use loosely fitting labels when the people you're labeling conscientiously object to them. Imagine, for instance, a member of a sect that doesn't believe in water baptism calling a Presbyterian a Baptist, because after all, he believes in baptizing people after they make a profession of faith.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Mar 25, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> . . . I think Calvinists have a Calvinism vs. Arminianism complex. The truth is that there are a lot of theological systems out there that ask different questions and use different methods to come to different answers. We would be more respectable if we used labels responsibly and focused on issues. I can't imagine how a Thomist Roman Catholic would respond to being called an Arminian. He would probably laugh.



I realize that all non-Calvinists are not true (or consistent) Arminians. Perhaps in a particular reference one should say that they "tend toward Arminianism in certain repects." Fine.

I guess I'm not understanding what your beef really is -- whether you're talking about its use here on the PB, or how you've heard the term used in personal conversations, or how it is used in theological publications, or what. You're of course free to jettison the term from your vocabulary.


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 25, 2009)

Charlie, I think you're absolutely right. Within "our camp," at least, Arminian has become a term almost completely devoid of meaning: it is often referred to "Anything which is not us."

I _do_ see the utility of such a term, however, when it comes to broad evangelicalism. Before this time, we could actually call things what they were in accordance with the system espoused: We could call Arminians, Arminians; we could call Socianians, Socinians; etc. Even amongst the most notorious heretics, there was at least the patience and endurance to create a coherent system. This simply does not exist anymore. Quite honestly, most broad evangelicalism is "nothing." There is no system; there is no set form of relations between doctrines. It's just "whatever the pastor decides to say that day." So what do we call that? The term Arminianism has been modified to fit the task of this nebulous teaching which emphasizes free-will; and, since I don't think there are really any actual, devoted disciples of Arminius out there today (maybe there are?), there at least isn't much competition for the term.

But I don't think that "Anything which isn't us" is a proper use of the term by any means.


----------



## Rangerus (Mar 25, 2009)

I just like calling people names.


----------



## cih1355 (Mar 25, 2009)

"Calvinist" and "Arminian" are not the only words you can use to describe a person's theological position. You can use the word, "Amyraldianism".

I wouldn't use the terms, "Calvinist" or "Arminian" to describe Lutherans. Lutheran churches such as the LCMS or WELS are not like Reformed or Presbyterian churches. Moreover, they are definitely not like Wesleyan, Methodist, or Free Will Baptist churches. 

By the way, there is actually a denomination called, "Free Will Baptist".

-----Added 3/25/2009 at 12:47:40 EST-----



> One experience that opened my eyes to this was a Counterpoints book on eternal security. Michael Horton represented "classical" Calvinism and Norman Geisler represented "moderate Calvinism" (haha). There were two others, a Reformation Arminian and a Wesleyan Arminian. I think Geisler represents the Dispensational mainstream in America pretty well. All 3 of the other writers pointed out that Geisler isn't even remotely Calvinist. The 2 Arminians clearly stated that he wasn't even Arminian and that they didn't want to be associated with his position. One of the Arminians called him a semi-Pelagian!



I read Geisler's essay in that Counterpoints book. He doesn't understand Calvinism. I find it odd that he calls his position, "moderate Calvinism", because his position is clearly not Calvinistic.


----------



## Zenas (Mar 25, 2009)

From what I have heard, I don't think Geisler really cares if what he says is accurate or inaccurate. He's going to define things as he feels like it and everyone should follow him.


----------



## Scott1 (Mar 25, 2009)

> *CharlieJ*
> 
> I think it is fair to say that Jacob Arminius would not recognize himself in the writings of Dave Hunt
> Mr. Hunt grew up in the Plymouth Bretheren and based on his refutation of Calvinism point-by-point with Mr White, he is knowledgeable and aware he is advocating Arminianism, and even semi-Pelagianism. I'm not familiar with Mr. Geisler's stated positions enough to comment.
> ...



It might be better to say "Arminian influenced" for most people, and reserve "Arminian" for those who are knowledgeably and intentionally committed to the remonstrants' points, such as Mr. Hunt.

Many well-meaning people misunderstand Arminianism and Calvinism as something of a continuum with man's will on the left side and God's sovereignty on the right side. They imagine that if they lean toward God's sovereignty (e.g 40%/60%) they are "Calvinist." Often, this misunderstanding starts with what sovereignty entails and what the effect of the fall was (total depravity).

Once, by God's grace, people see that God's sovereignty is total, 100%, and could not even possibly be limited by anything He created (like us), and that the fall affected every aspect of man's being with a bias, tendency toward sin, the whole of the "five points" begin to fall in place.


----------



## reformed trucker (Mar 25, 2009)

If "Arminian" evokes too much theological confusion, think they would understand "heretic"?


----------



## Rich Koster (Mar 25, 2009)

reformed trucker said:


> If "Arminian" evokes too much theological confusion, think they would understand "heretic"?



Some of the terms I have heard are hybrid and cross pollinated


----------



## lynnie (Mar 25, 2009)

I don't understand this comment:

"Almost all American Christians (except for conscious Arminians) repudiate at least one major point - insecurity of the believer."

I think it is the opposite. Talking about not backsliding and not falling away is a central focus. Perseverance is not a commonly accepted doctrine, in my experience of the non Reformed. 

Sometimes you go up front to get really saved on a regular basis.


----------



## steven-nemes (Mar 25, 2009)

I normally just refer to them as heretics when I talk to them...


----------



## CharlieJ (Mar 26, 2009)

A few responses and then something that will (I hope) further the conversation.

Scott and Lynnie, Dave Hunt and the majority of dispensational evangelicalism repudiate both the perseverance of the saints (as Calvinists understand it) and the Arminian doctrine of "falling from grace." Rather, they (along with Ryrie, Zane Hodges, Paul Enns, many IFBs, etc.) believe that a momentary act of belief is all that is necessary for salvation. That act of belief carries with it no necessary internal transformation resulting in a changed life. Thus, it is possible to be a carnal Christian never growing your whole life (see Ryrie's _Balancing the Christian Life_). In the more extreme advocates, a person may even renounce his Christianity and stop believing, but still go to heaven when he dies. So, they believe in "eternal security" without "perseverance." That is why I said, Scott, that Arminius and Wesley would not recognize themselves in much of what is commonly being called "Arminianism" by Calvinists today.

Now, what is my beef? If you read any books or other apologetic writings by these people, who tend to call themselves "biblicists," they will say clearly that they are not Arminians and not Calvinists. Then they will point to some Reformed person like James White or R.C. Sproul, who attacks "Arminians," and say that the Calvinists are the big dummies that are stereotyping and straw-manning and so forth. I think they have a point. I think we need to start bringing back "Pelagian" and "Semi-Pelagian" because what many of these people (i.e., Geisler) are believing is much *worse* than what Wesley believed.

Also, in personal conversation, I never call someone like that an Arminian. First, it would offend them. Second, it would cloud the issues. Third, many of them are opposed to "systems," which is an issue in and of itself that I want to deal with. As soon as I slap a label on them, they think, "There he goes. Typical Calvinist stereotyping straw-man." Fourth, although I am not opposed to drawing connections where they exist, I think we should allow people to represent themselves as they choose as far as honesty allows us to; in contrast, we should not represent people by something that they may be similar to just because it's easier for us.


----------



## Scott1 (Mar 26, 2009)

Mr. Hunt approvingly cites and refers to Mr. Arminius, even uses him to add credibility to his (Mr. Hunt’s) case.



> Dave Hunt, _What Love is this?_
> 
> ... James Arminius was actually biblical in his beliefs ... (p. 76).
> 
> ...



While Mr. Hunt may have a nuanced viewed of how we lose salvation, his writings seem to agree with the fifth point of the remonstrants, and he takes credit for that.


> Article 5.
> 
> [Assurance and Security - corresponds to the fifth of TULIP’s five points, Perseverance of the Saints]
> 
> That those who are incorporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, as a result have full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no deceit or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” *But* *whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of neglecting grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full confidence of our mind.*


Basically, this is a sophisticated way of saying one can lose salvation, and Mr. Hunt's published views agree with that.


----------



## CharlieJ (Mar 26, 2009)

Scott, Hunt praising Arminius is no different than Calvin praising Augustine. Neither believe everything their predecessor taught. You are only hearing half of what Hunt says. It is true that he agrees with Arminius about the forsaking Christ and returning to this evil world, etc. However, they disagree on what happens to those people. Arminius concluded that they were no longer saved. Hunt concludes that because of grace they still go to heaven. See the difference? Hunt fleshes out his view a little more in _Debating Calvinism_, Chapter 14. Basically, he says both Calvin and Arminius were wrong and that R.T. Kendall was right.

This is what the whole thread is about. Saying Hunt believes in Arminius' view because he quotes Arminius and disagrees with Calvin is wrong. It is as wrong as Hunt saying, since Calvin quotes Augustine a lot and argues against Baptists, that Calvin believed in baptismal regeneration! Everyone should be represented as accurately as possible, even jerks like Dave Hunt.


----------



## Scott1 (Mar 26, 2009)

> *CharlieJ*
> 
> Arminius concluded that they were no longer saved. Hunt concludes that because of grace they still go to heaven. See the difference?



Yes, after looking at Mr. Hunt's spoken and written views, I see your point.

Mr. Hunt does state and defend his belief in eternal security. He gets there with a cockeyed way of reasoning, incomplete theology, and by means of other statements that are contradictory, as I hear him:

[video=youtube;E1Wnd4XfZ4Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1Wnd4XfZ4Q[/video]

But he does advocate his version at least of 'eternal security.' He is emphasizing more that one can be sure of their salvation more than that one cannot lose it, as I'm hearing him.



> This is what the whole thread is about. Saying Hunt believes in Arminius' view because he quotes Arminius and disagrees with Calvin is wrong. It is as wrong as Hunt saying, since Calvin quotes Augustine a lot and argues against Baptists, that Calvin believed in baptismal regeneration! Everyone should be represented as accurately as possible, even jerks like Dave Hunt.



We need to make the biblical case that all "five points" are necessarily logically and dependent upon one another. Anything less is "Arminian influenced" whether one identifies oneself that way or not. That goes for people such as Mr. Hunt who know well what Arminius taught and intentionally identify with some of his points, and those who do not know much, if anything, about him.


----------



## JM (Mar 26, 2009)

...because they get mad when you call them inconsistent.


----------



## The Deeps (Mar 26, 2009)

Why cant' Monergism and Synergism be used.


----------



## Skyler (Mar 26, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> So, why do we saddle people with labels they reject when they don't seem to fit that well anyway? Isn't it time for a new term, or at least a modified one?



1. Because it annoys them.
2. Because Calvinists lack imagination.
3. Even if Calvinists did have imagination, Arminians--excuse me, "non-Calvinists"--have no sense of humor.
4. Most Arminians don't even know why they stand where they stand. Those who do usually accept the term.



The Deeps said:


> Why cant' Monergism and Synergism be used.



Because George Bryson is a monergist. He said so himself.


----------



## charliejunfan (Mar 26, 2009)

I think Able above just solved the overall problem, which is, lets call anyone who is a Calvinist/Amyraldian a monergist and call anyone who isn't a synergist! Because although Amyraldians are not Calvinists they are monergists.
But if one wants to get touchy about it here are some terms:

5point Calvinist=Calvinist(anyone who holds to the 5points and defends them against synergists and other non 5pointers)

5Point Calvinist Covenant Confessional baptist=Reformed Baptist(James White)

5Point Calvinist Covenant Charismatic baptist=Sovereign Grace or Reformed Charismatic baptist(John Piper etc.)

5Point Calvinist Dispensationalist=Calvinistic Baptist(John Macarthur etc.)

5point Calvinist Covenant Congregational Paedobaptist= Reformed Congregationalist(John Owen etc.)

5point Calvinist Covenant Presbyterian Paedobaptist=Reformed Presbyterian(John Knox etc.)

4point Calvinist Covenant=Covenantal Amyraldian(Richard Baxter etc.)

4point Calvinist Dispensationalist=Dispensational Amyraldian(don't know any famous ones so...my old pastor=Steve Coel)

4point Calvinist Lutheran=Misouri Synod/WELS(they do hold to P dont they?)

3point Calvinist Covenant paedo baptist=ELC, WI synod(in some cases) or FV(in some cases)

2point Calvinist=crazy(nobody I've ever heard of...)

1point Calvinist=Geislerian(Norman Geisler and most dispensationalists)

5point Arminian=Arminian(John Wesley and so on)

5point Arminian holiness=Holy Arminian<hahaha!>(Micheal W. Smith)

5point Arminian charismatisism=Pentacostal Arminian

4point Arminian charismatisist=Geislerian Arminian

5point Arminian 7point sacramentalist=Roman Catholic(the Pope)

NOTE!!! Please correct me if I miscalculated the points!

And the other weird ones can just be called by their denomination/sect Such as:

Mormon
Jehovas Witness
7th day adventist
oneness pentacostals
fiveness pentacostals(hahaha)
Scientologists
and All that other mindlessness


----------



## CharlieJ (Mar 26, 2009)

Other Charlie, I'm not sure whether that was supposed to be serious or humorous, but either way it was quite impressive. I too like the idea of using "monergist" and "synergist" as labels. They're preciese, relevant, and don't assume too much. 

Oh BTW, Mark Driscoll and Bruce Ware would be covenantal Amyraldians (I think). Bob Jones University and some related schools are putting out lots of them.


----------

