Kinda long, kinda deep, kinda boring

In college I was required to take almost four years of theology in order to obtain my bachelors in Biblical Studies. Mostly I drew in the margins of my paper, and practiced writing "Bethany Scottberg" over and over. But, one of the topics I was most interested in was the discussion of Calvinism versus Arminianism. These are the most basic stances on salvation for Protestant and Evangelical faiths. The Assemblies of God lines up with the Arminian view, while most churches adopt the Calvinistic approach. If I remember correctly (I could be wrong here; I am going on memory and memory alone), the fundamental difference is that a Calvinist places the responsibility on God for a salvation experience, and the Arminianist believes that man is the responsible party. A Calvinist would argue that God pre-destined and elected for specific individuals to be saved. An Arminianist would counter that argument by saying that although God knows who will be saved, He does not chose, but rather man chooses out of his own free will.

The biggest issue that I have worked through in the area of soteriology (the study of salvation) in my adult life, is that of eternal security. A Calvinist would say that since God pre-destined an individual to be saved, once that person accepts salvation, he can never lose that gift. I remember having a conversation with a Calvinsit friend and he said, "if someone walks away from salvation after accepting Christ, than they were never saved in the first place." (Again, that is someone's personal opinion.) The Arminian point of view believes that salvation can be lost or forfeited if one knowingly chooses to reject Christ by their lifestyle and actions after their initial salvation experience.

Whether or not a person can lose their salvation, is not what leaves my mind pondering (I am in the minority, and believe that if a person can chose salvation, they can also chose to forfeit it). There is an element of philosophy labeled "Non-Lordship Salvation" that usually (not all the time) goes in tandem with the eternal security belief. It says that Jesus can be your Savior, but he doesn't have to be your Lord. This would mean that you believe that Jesus can save your soul from eternal torment, but your behavior and actions do not necessarily need to reflect him. This idea separates faith and repentance. Essentially in Non-Lordship Salvation, repentance is not required for a salvation experience, but rather faith in Christ is the sole necessity. On a personal level I am not comfortable with calling Jesus my savior, but neglecting Him as Lord of my life.

I have no motive for this post. I just happen to be reading 1 Peter yesterday, and this opened a whole can of worms in my over active mind. There are so many layers to this theological onion, but I have made a commitment to dust off my theo books, and re-familiarize myself with this issue.