Understanding Calvinism

[Pinkman]

Is this the calvinist view?

And what about hyper-calvinism?

Do they hold a different view?

Yes. In a nutshell Hyper Calvinists hold the supralapsarian view. Think of PRE fall. Before the foundation of the world God predestined all who would be saved and all who would not. God ordained even Adams fall.

J Calvin
"...it is utterly inconsistent to transfer the preparation for destruction to anything but God's secret plan." "..God's secret plan is the cause of hardening". Book 2, Ch 23, Section 1

The infralapsarian view is that Adam had free will and after he fell then God predestined all of humanity. I.E Adams did not decree Adams fall as above.
Calvinists who hold this veiw generally believe that God did NOT predestine the reprobates but merely passed over them. Calvin also alludes to this !

"Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children." Book 3, Ch 23, Section 1


Note I am only quoting Calvin as apart from Augustine he was the most prolific writer on this.

 

[heymikey80]

Whew. I'm not sure I'd plunge into supra / infra / sub discussion for any clarity of understanding Calvinism.

 

[JustAsIam77]

Viewing many threads the phrase 'You do not understand Calvinism" has often popped up.

I would like to start a thread where Calvinists can answer really tough questions about what Calvinism means.

Definitely NOT Calvinism vs anything else as its been done and usual ends up with a moderator intervening.

Any takers ?

Might as well include Luther, Zwingli and all the other prominent theologians of the Reformation period, just sayin.

 

[Zeena]

Yes. In a nutshell Hyper Calvinists hold the supralapsarian view. Think of PRE fall. Before the foundation of the world God predestined all who would be saved and all who would not. God ordained even Adams fall.

J Calvin
"...it is utterly inconsistent to transfer the preparation for destruction to anything but God's secret plan." "..God's secret plan is the cause of hardening". Book 2, Ch 23, Section 1

The infralapsarian view is that Adam had free will and after he fell then God predestined all of humanity. I.E Adams did not decree Adams fall as above.
Calvinists who hold this veiw generally believe that God did NOT predestine the reprobates but merely passed over them. Calvin also alludes to this !

Adams did not decree Adams, as in man did not decree his own fall?

Also, what view do you hold, if you don't mind me asking?

"Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children." Book 3, Ch 23, Section 1


Note I am only quoting Calvin as apart from Augustine he was the most prolific writer on this.

I appreciate that you are only quoting from Calvin, as it might messy up the waters if you quoted alternate sources, thanks!

 

[Zeena]

Whew. I'm not sure I'd plunge into supra / infra / sub discussion for any clarity of understanding Calvinism.

It's all Calvin to me!

Just a joke, of course there are differences, but they need not be arguemental, surely?

 

[2thePoint]

I was asked to return to the thread. But I won't let it be turned from the OP's simple request for definitions into being about me.

So, thus far it seems there is no one definition that can be pointed to as the core or necessity of belief for being a Calvinist, then?

 

[Pinkman]

Adams did not decree Adams, as in man did not decree his own fall?

Big typo, it was late at night. It should be God did not decree....

Also, what view do you hold, if you don't mind me asking?
I kind of hold to the supra view. Partly it was drummed in from an early age and it seems to move away is to question God's omniscience and omnipotence.

Another factor for me is that I see the -post fall single predestination -side represented on not just this forum as confusing. Different people hold different ideas that do not appear consistent to me. E.g the baby issue. I do not know the answer to this and it does bother me.

Just for info - I have spent most of my life in the Southern UK. I believe if all church goers in the UK were questioned, it would show that 90% hold arminian ideas and I believe most of that 90% would not realize it. Calvinism is not mainstream in the UK protestant church. Rather the big divide (not quite the right word) is those who are very charismatic and those who are not. Some would say that if you do not have a gift - usually tongues - and also have not been slain in the spirit then you are not saved. I find this ironic as hard line Calvinism holds a parallel in that if you are not elect then you are not saved ( and can never be)

So I have my own doubts. Do I depart from my family background ? I now live abroad but it is still a big step.

Is e.g the subject of "Total depravity" debatable within Calvinism ? I would have held to the supra view however I have heard this subject debated with several interpretations put forth. Hence this thread. Is there a mainstream view in the USA ?

I am not after a comparison with arminianism as many threads have already done that.

 

[Pinkman]

Whew. I'm not sure I'd plunge into supra / infra / sub discussion for any clarity of understanding Calvinism.

So how would you clarify just the infra side which I get the impression is mainstream ?


The OP refers to multiple threads
I believe this is a good idea as it might save going over a lot of old ground. Hope this is OK but if not - shout.

 

[AndOne]

I was asked to return to the thread. But I won't let it be turned from the OP's simple request for definitions into being about me.

So, thus far it seems there is no one definition that can be pointed to as the core or necessity of belief for being a Calvinist, then?

You need to read the Canons of Dordt - that is what makes up to core beliefs of Calvinism. If someone disagrees with any point made up in that they are not Calvinist. You will find your clearest definition there.

 

[2thePoint]

You need to read the Canons of Dordt - that is what makes up to core beliefs of Calvinism. If someone disagrees with any point made up in that they are not Calvinist. You will find your clearest definition there.

Thanks... do all the Calvinists agree with this statement though?

 

[heymikey80]

Thanks... do all the Calvinists agree with this statement though?

As Geisler (an anticalvinist imho) claims to be the real calvinist, I'm not sure how anyone would answer that.

 

[Tzaousios]

As Geisler (an anticalvinist imho) claims to be the real calvinist, I'm not sure how anyone would answer that.

This is a good point. Do you think it would be safe to say that the Canons of Dordt encapusulate a historically-verifiable, Reformational, and therefore classical, perspective of Calvinism against Hyper-Calvinism and various strands of Neo-Calvinism out there today?

 

[2thePoint]

So, we still can't say what is essential belief for a Calvinist, since there are factions which all claim to be the real thing?

 

[heymikey80]

So how would you clarify just the infra side which I get the impression is mainstream ?

There's a reason why I don't point to the order of foundational decrees to provide clarification. They're conclusions from specific versions of theology which aren't very distinguishable in Scriptural foundations, either.

There's a distinct possibility that certain forms of sublapsarianism can be excluded -- they tend to force decisions on God's part outside the foundation of the world. Other than that, it's tough to get very far.

 

[Pinkman]

You need to read the Canons of Dordt - that is what makes up to core beliefs of Calvinism. If someone disagrees with any point made up in that they are not Calvinist. You will find your clearest definition there.

I have trawled lots of threads and in one of them I believe skala posted a short list detailing the essence of Calvinism in response to a question from Henza. I was impressed with it succinctness.

If its OK with you skala would you mind re posting it here ?

 

[AndOne]

As Geisler (an anticalvinist imho) claims to be the real calvinist, I'm not sure how anyone would answer that.

For me Dordt is the litmus test. I guarantee you Geisler does not agree with the Canons of Dordt - hence he is not a true Calvinist despite the fact he calls himself a moderate calvinist - which is a joke in and of itself.

 

[JustAsIam77]

Calvinism is merely the proper understanding of scripture, pure and simple, as mentioned previously the Canons of Dordt explains the doctrine.

The Canons of Dordt

No doubt influenced to some degree by The Canons of the Council of Orange 1000 yrs before.

 

[billybtennessee]

As for the Canons of Dordt, I do agree with a lot of the articles. Such as: 1st Main point: Articles 2,3,4,5. 2nd Main Point:Articles 5,6. 3rd and 4th Main Points: Articles 1,5,6,9,13,15,16,17.

So, personally, I don't disagree with every single teaching agreed on. I just don't agree with ALL of them. I also do not believe that any of the other sects are free of error in their particular doctrines. Including the one I am a member of. I don't believe God wants us biting and devouring one another. Of course, we also can't agree on every point either.

I believe God has purpose in all of them. And in spite of them. What seems foolish to man, God uses for His own Glory. He is doing that in all of them, I believe. I focus mostly on believing, trusting, and abiding in Jesus Christ. In Him all the mysteries are solved. I really believe this is where we find unity, and only through these, in Jesus Christ. This is the only means any will be saved, regardless..

Anyhow, just wanted to post all I agreed with in the link. May surprise some of you. God Bless.

 

[heymikey80]

So, we still can't say what is essential belief for a Calvinist, since there are factions which all claim to be the real thing?

One might say as much for any group.

They're not factions of Calvinism. T'be flatly honest, I know of no one who accepts Geisler's claim to be a Calvinist except Geisler. The trouble is, this situation extends to hypercalvinist groups as well. So on either side of broader Calvinistic soteriology there're people who make claims, which aren't supported by other Calvinistic groups.

In point of fact, within Calvinism there're plenty of views that aren't agreeable to some view of theology. Some would take exception to Thornwell's view of baptism. Like Charles Hodge.

The idea of there being essentials would itself be controversial. The idea of essentials or fundamentals of salvation is a pretty recent phenomenon in theology. So the claim that this is some useful judgment call is also subject to question.

Finally -- the definition here in CF of Calvinists is essentially adherents to the Three Forms of Unity, the Westminster or London Confessions. That's a general view that's largely accepted in the Americas due to the prevalence of modern Presbyterian conservatism, which in general holds to this range of theology.

Once you get there, you can function with a range of views that's largely acceptable or unacceptable within the group of Calvinists. But there are also variations there as well.

This is not at all unusual in Christian theology or denominationalism. Compare Franciscans with Jesuits and you'll see what I mean.

 

[2thePoint]

One might say as much for any group.

This is true. But the problem comes in the oft-repeated objection to non-Calvinists of "misunderstanding" what Calvinism is. If there are no essentials, and if it is unreasonable to ask for them, then I don't see the basis for the objection. It would be more helpful for any given Calvinist to simply say "this is what I believe and I can't answer for others", just as any Christian of any particular "label" might do. In the end, people defy easy labels and faith is truly an individual matter. As such, then, it seems reasonable that we dispense with the labels or just use them as generalities, which again pulls the support out from under the claim that others fail to understand.