# Arminian and covenantal???? Please enlighten me!



## 5solasmom (Mar 15, 2007)

I've been on a christian ladies message board for years and the general concensus when you start putting any kind of "terms" out there is that "terms" are limiting and people don't like "labels" - or - many will say that the "truth" lies between "the extremes". OK

Many who are arminian (or a "mix" between arminian and calvinistic  ) are not dispensational. Several are arminian but claim to be covenantal. But here's my question. Is this common? Is it even possible? Because if so, I have to admit that I really have NO idea how that would play out at all.  

Can arminians BE covenantal? Semi pelagianism came along long before dispensationalism, so perhaps so....I guess I just never thought the two would make "sense" together...maybe I'm the one confused (aren't I good at hiding it though?).


----------



## Poimen (Mar 15, 2007)

5solasmom said:


> I've been on a christian ladies message board for years and the general concensus when you start putting any kind of "terms" out there is that "terms" are limiting and people don't like "labels" - or - many will say that the "truth" lies between "the extremes". OK
> 
> Many who are arminian (or a "mix" between arminian and calvinistic  ) are not dispensational. Several are arminian but claim to be covenantal. But here's my question. Is this common? Is it even possible? Because if so, I have to admit that I really have NO idea how that would play out at all.
> 
> Can arminians BE covenantal? Semi pelagianism came along long before dispensationalism, so perhaps so....I guess I just never thought the two would make "sense" together...maybe I'm the one confused (aren't I good at hiding it though?).



Arminius was a minister in the Reformed churches in Holland so it would be fair to say that he was covenantal. However his covenant theology was rejected at the Synod of Dordrecht (1618-1619) so his 'covenantal' views are obviously not Reformed.


----------



## 5solasmom (Mar 15, 2007)

See....I have so much to learn!  

I'm just trying to "get" how the two can coexist together hermanuetically. I must be the one confused.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Mar 15, 2007)

I too have heard Wesleyan Arminians refer to themselves as holding to "a" covenant theology. But as mentioned this does not match up with Reformed Covenant Theology.

Vic Reasoner has attempted to briefly decribe Wesleyan Covenant Theology while deriding both Calvinists and Dispensationalists here:
http://www.fwponline.cc/v18n2reasonera.html


----------



## 5solasmom (Mar 15, 2007)

Gomarus said:


> I too have heard Wesleyan Arminians refer to themselves as holding to "a" covenant theology. But as mentioned this does not match up with Reformed Covenant Theology.
> 
> Vic Reasoner has attempted to briefly decribe Wesleyan Covenant Theology while deriding both Calvinists and Dispensationalists here:
> http://www.fwponline.cc/v18n2reasonera.html



I'll have to go back and read that more slowly, but I think I'm understanding it more...sorta.  With all the various people and views he claimed were flawed or wrong, I didn't really get a grasp of what exactly it is _he_ thinks is correct....I'll have to come back to it when I have another chance.

Thanks for the link!


----------



## Poimen (Mar 15, 2007)

5solasmom said:


> I'm just trying to "get" how the two can coexist together hermanuetically. I must be the one confused.



They can co-exist for those who define 'covenant' in a manner consistent with their semi-pelagian views. Covenant would be something like a contract: do what is right and everything will be fine (God helping us!) Thus the conditionality would come to bear upon the sinner's performance of covenant duties and responsibilities (faith and works).

For example (from the Canons of Dordrecht, 5. RE 2):



> Who teach: That God does indeed provide the believer with sufficient powers to persevere, and is ever ready to preserve these in him, if he will do his duty; but that though all things, which are necessary to persevere in faith and which God will use to preserve faith, are made use of, it even then ever depends on the pleasure of the will whether it will persevere or not.



For the Reformed, the covenant (of works) is a contract of sorts that actually impairs the sinner's acceptance before God, thus Christ came to fulfill it for us (the covenant of grace - including the conditions of the covenant).


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Mar 15, 2007)

I agree that Reasoner's article is not very well constructed. But the point is that you will hear Arminians refer to themselves as holding to covenant theology. However, it seems their covenants btw God and man are always conditional and dependent on man's free will response for any hope of fruition.


----------



## 5solasmom (Mar 15, 2007)

OK - this makes sense now! It's not the same "covenantal theology" because they define covenant differently. That jives with my original thinking on how terms are either shuned altogether or tweaked to fit another view. 

That drives me batty. 

This is why we need MORE terms and labels!!!!


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 15, 2007)

5solasmom said:


> See....I have so much to learn!
> 
> I'm just trying to "get" how the two can coexist together hermanuetically. I must be the one confused.


 
Anyone can inconsistently believe anything they want and think they are holding onto the truth. It may even be comforting to them. But they live in a happy inconsistency.

One could be "covenantal", "Roman Catholic", "dispensational" and "Antinomian" all wrapped up in thier own mind. But they are consistently wrong.

One could be "dispensational", "covenantal", Antinomian, and still believe the doctrines of grace. Think about all those "New Covenant THeologians" out there. THey are consistently hermeneutically inconsistent and flawed in thier exegetical work, but they think they have figured out how to be Antinomian and covenantal in one shot.


----------

