Understanding Calvinism

[heymikey80]

Dort has been mentioned several times in this thread. But there seems to be no consensus on how much of it is the minimum requirement to label someone a Calvinist.

There's also no consensus on how much is a minimum requirement for "life".
There's no consensus on the definition of "human".
There's no consensus on the requirement for "Christian".
There's even no consensus on the requirement for "God".
It's tough philosophically to even define the requirement for "existence".

So these must not exist, either?

No indeed. The challenge itself is vacuous.

I already mentioned this too, as evidence that there is no consensus, such that anyone who complains that Calvinism is misunderstood must first explain exactly what they personally believe.

That's simply not the case. Context is king, not some challenge to define your opinions.

Either that, or before you post anything else, the above must also be defined by you. In words that themselves, must be defined by you. And so on, and so on.

The absurdity is believing this is a plausible argument. It's merely an attempt at deconstruction. It's not real, because it would have to apply back to all participants. And none can supply what's needed.

 

[heymikey80]

One last time: in order for anyone on any topic to complain that their belief is misunderstood, they have to first explain what they personally believe.

Dordt.

Anyone else?

It's the historical definition for Calvinistic Soteriology.

See the heading for this forum.

 

[Zeena]

There is no way that one can consistently hold to Total Depravity and conclude man is able to turn to God .

Which is just one of many reasons total depravity is bunk.

Titus 2:11-15
For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

In fact what do we mean by "turning to God" UNLESS WE MEAN CONVERT TO HIS WAY ? which implies salvation anyway .

And what does it mean to turn away, unless one already had Him in view?

Matt 18:2-3;10
And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

Luke 18:15-16
And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

maybe ,
You will find many who LIKE OSAS but deny it's very foundation and argue for man's free will to be saved but not to be lost !

OSAS is bunk too. For Salvation is not a matter of us being saved, but of the Lord holding us up. Which is accomplished as we proactively believe on God through the faith of Jesus Christ, in and through us.

Right doctrine by itself never saved anyone , yet bad doctrine has blinded many to the truth and caused them to oppose the Gospel .

Indeed.

Just answer any unbeliever, tell him he doesn't believe on God because He doesn't want him to be saved, tell him he's a child of hell by the will of God and it will be evident the opposition is nothing but this doctrine;

Matt 15:4
For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

 

[Zeena]

Unconditional Election is either true or false , it leaves no room for an alternative .

Adam was a child of God, yet he fell. He was elect of God, and yet he fell from Grace.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he never got up, though he fell.

Mic 7:8
Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy: when I fall, I shall arise; when I sit in darkness, the LORD shall be a light unto me.

Perseverance Of The Saints is either true or false , there is no middle ground.

Rev 3:16
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

We either find ourselves agreeing with Dort (Calvinists) or disagreeing with Dort (Arminian)

Calvinists
Arminians
Inconsistent Calvinists (NoL)
Inconsistent Arminians (OSAS)

---> Child of God.

 

[cygnusx1]

Dordt.

Anyone else?

It's the historical definition for Calvinistic Soteriology.

See the heading for this forum.

Amen Mikey !

 

[cygnusx1]

Adam was a child of God, yet he fell. He was elect of God, and yet he fell from Grace.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he never got up, though he fell.

Mic 7:8
Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy: when I fall, I shall arise; when I sit in darkness, the LORD shall be a light unto me.

Rev 3:16
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

---> Child of God.

Adam elect of God ? saved by Christ ? where ?

 

[AndOne]

For Salvation is not a matter of us being saved, but of the Lord holding us up. Which is accomplished as we proactively believe on God through the faith of Jesus Christ, in and through us.

This is impossible for any human being to do unless the Holy Spirit changes their heart first. Therefore salvation is all God's grace. See Titus 3.

 

[heymikey80]

I love this (an OP misrepresenting oneself & being off-topic from oneself)........ PLEAAASSSSEEE define a hyper Calvinist........ & don't quote Phil Johnson or refer to some off brand dispensational Harold Campingier!

Dordt describes the more radical viewpoints of hyper-calvinism as views it detests, but has been alleged to hold. They're groups who mix a 180-degree opposition to Arminianism with the strawmen anti-Calvinists attack when attacking Calvinists -- thus embracing a view that's 180-deg opposed to Arminianism, but is not Calvinism.

Virtually every form of hypercalvinism takes exception to some soteriological element of the Canons of Dordt. The PRCA is known for the claim to submit to Dordt, but attempt to reinterpret certain statements of Dordt in ways that suppress evangelism.

Of particular interest would be Dordt 3.8-9.

Article 8: The Serious Call of the Gospel

Nevertheless, all who are called through the gospel are called seriously. For seriously and most genuinely God makes known in his Word what is pleasing to him: that those who are called should come to him. Seriously he also promises rest for their souls and eternal life to all who come to him and believe.

Article 9: Human Responsibility for Rejecting the Gospel

The fact that many who are called through the ministry of the gospel do not come and are not brought to conversion must not be blamed on the gospel, nor on Christ, who is offered through the gospel, nor on God, who calls them through the gospel and even bestows various gifts on them, but on the people themselves who are called. Some in self-assurance do not even entertain the Word of life; others do entertain it but do not take it to heart, and for that reason, after the fleeting joy of a temporary faith, they relapse; others choke the seed of the Word with the thorns of life's cares and with the pleasures of the world and bring forth no fruits. This our Savior teaches in the parable of the sower (Matt. 13).​

 

[Zeena]

Adam elect of God ? saved by Christ ? where ?

Rom 8:29
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

IOW;

You can't hold to this doctrine of election, which is separate from faith, without all mankind being saved.

 

[cygnusx1]

Rom 8:29
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

IOW;

You can't hold to this doctrine of election, which is separate from faith, without all mankind being saved.

???


still waiting for proof of Adam's being elect ?

Those whom He foreknew is limited by it's context .

Show where scripture states Adam was elect or saved .

... first born amongst many brethren NOT the entire human race .

There are two Adams , one heads up fallen lost sinful race ie, ruined , the second Adam heads up the redeemed , renewed , regenerated and is even called ONE NEW MAN !

 

[Pinkman]

Article 1: God's Right to Condemn All People

Since all people have sinned in Adam and have come under the sentence of the curse and eternal death, God would have done no one an injustice if it had been his will to leave the entire human race in sin and under the curse, and to condemn them on account of their sin. .....

Article 3: The Preaching of the Gospel

In order that people may be brought to faith, God mercifully sends proclaimers of this very joyful message to the people he wishes and at the time he wishes.


Article 4: A Twofold Response to the Gospel

God's anger remains on those who do not believe this gospel....


Article 5: The Sources of Unbelief and of Faith

The cause or blame for this unbelief, as well as for all other sins, is not at all in God, but in man.

Article 6: God's Eternal Decision

The fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from his eternal decision.....


Hi Everyone

The snippets from Dordt above I believe the cause of much heated debate and disagreement.

From a Hyper Calvinistic point of view the message is simple - double predestination.
Or God's makes it such that everyone is born in sin. No choice. God rescues who he wants. Blames the rest for being sinful. Very hard to accept but very simple.

To non calvinists this cannot be right. I.E That God creates people in sin (presuming they are not reincarnated) then blames them for being something they had no option in. Still simple enough though.

What confuses me is the non-hyper school. My reading is that Dordt is hyper Calvinism. Seems to me the non hypers to use cygnusx1's words - inconsistent.

 

[Pinkman]

Article 4: A Twofold Response to the Gospel

God's anger remains on those who do not believe this gospel....

Does his anger remain with those who never heard the gospel ?

 

[washedagain]

Which is just one of many reasons total depravity is bunk.

Zeena, if you made a batch of brownies and your cat climbed up on the counter and proceeded to defecate in the batch, is the batch ruined?

The batch was perfectly fine till the bad element was added. ruining the whole batch.

That is what sin is in a person.... ruined. No matter how many good ingredients the batch has, it is still bad.

That is what total depravity is. A ruined batch.

You wouldn't look at the batch with cat poop in it and say, well... it is basically good...it didn't get on all the batter so it is still good. It still has good eggs, good chocolate, good sugar, good flour... so it is still basically good. That would be insane thinking.

It simply is a reality.

If anyone thinks the brownie batter is basically good is nuts.

 

[Pinkman]

...PLEAAASSSSEEE define a hyper Calvinist........ & don't quote Phil Johnson or refer to some off brand dispensational Harold Campingier!

Harold who ?

Anyway. A hyper Calvinist (generally, they do differ a bit) is someone who believes God predestined Adam to sin and also anyone else. IE surpralapsarianism. Also double predestination.

Non hypers hold to infralapsaianism i.e God did not predestine Adam to sin. God did predestine all who would be saved but passed over those that would not. I.e single predestination.

Hypers believe that Total depravity means total inability. Total wretchedness towards God. Non hypers soften this a bit and say it means one is totally affected. I have been to lectures where the non-hyper gives his views, on question time he often backtracks and gets into a mess. Another example is the book "Chosen by God" by R C Sproul. The first few chapters are about total inability of man towards God. Chapter six he back tracks saying all men have equal chance but it is his freewill to rebel. Unlike what Dordt says.

This is why I have an issue with the non-hyper school of thought.

Hypers are hard line. Non hypers are not. IMHO

 

[cygnusx1]

Article 4: A Twofold Response to the Gospel

God's anger remains on those who do not believe this gospel....

Does his anger remain with those who never heard the gospel ?

Yes ! it surely does.

Not hearing the Gospel is no excuse for sin.

there is wrath upon even one sin (Adam only sinned once in order to be condemned )

The Gospel is God's third and FINAL light to mankind . Mankind is already condemned because of the sin of Adam.

 

[heymikey80]

Article 1: God's Right to Condemn All People

Since all people have sinned in Adam and have come under the sentence of the curse and eternal death, God would have done no one an injustice if it had been his will to leave the entire human race in sin and under the curse, and to condemn them on account of their sin. .....

Article 3: The Preaching of the Gospel

In order that people may be brought to faith, God mercifully sends proclaimers of this very joyful message to the people he wishes and at the time he wishes.


Article 4: A Twofold Response to the Gospel

God's anger remains on those who do not believe this gospel....


Article 5: The Sources of Unbelief and of Faith

The cause or blame for this unbelief, as well as for all other sins, is not at all in God, but in man.

Article 6: God's Eternal Decision

The fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from his eternal decision.....


Hi Everyone

The snippets from Dordt above I believe the cause of much heated debate and disagreement.

From a Hyper Calvinistic point of view the message is simple - double predestination.
Or God's makes it such that everyone is born in sin. No choice. God rescues who he wants. Blames the rest for being sinful. Very hard to accept but very simple.

To non calvinists this cannot be right. I.E That God creates people in sin (presuming they are not reincarnated) then blames them for being something they had no option in. Still simple enough though.

What confuses me is the non-hyper school. My reading is that Dordt is hyper Calvinism. Seems to me the non hypers to use cygnusx1's words - inconsistent.

Double Predestination is Biblical: 'for those who do not believe, "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone," 8and "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.' 1 Peter 2:8

However, Symmetric Predestination is not Biblical -- that the reasons for someone being condemned are the same as the reasons for someone being saved. Dordt makes this asymmetry abundantly clear, leading to a break between hypercalvinistic Symmetric Predestination and Calvinistic Asymmetric Predestination.

Hence it clearly appears that those of whom one could hardly expect it have shown no truth, equity, and charity at all in wishing to make the public believe:

* * *
--that this teaching means that God predestined and created, by the bare and unqualified choice of his will, without the least regard or consideration of any sin, the greatest part of the world to eternal condemnation; that in the same manner in which election is the source and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and ungodliness; that many infant children of believers are snatched in their innocence from their mothers' breasts and cruelly cast into hell so that neither the blood of Christ nor their baptism nor the prayers of the church at their baptism can be of any use to them; and very many other slanderous accusations of this kind which the Reformed churches not only disavow but even denounce with their whole heart.​

 

[Pinkman]

Yes ! it surely does.

Not hearing the Gospel is no excuse for sin.

there is wrath upon even one sin (Adam only sinned once in order to be condemned )

The Gospel is God's third and FINAL light to mankind . Mankind is already condemned because of the sin of Adam.

This sounds to me like hyper Calvinism. Everyone is created totaly depraved. no freewill to not be part of Adam. God also giving them no chance to be saved.


How does this square with HeyMikey's asymmetric predestination ? Seems to me two opposite systems of thought.

 

[Pinkman]

Double ....reprobation is the cause of unbelief and ungodliness; that many infant children of believers are snatched in their innocence from their mothers' breasts and cruelly cast into hell so that neither the blood of Christ nor their baptism nor the prayers of the church at their baptism can be of any use to them; and very many other slanderous accusations of this kind which the Reformed churches not only disavow but even denounce with their whole heart.[/COLOR][/INDENT]

Are non hyper Calvinist agreed on this ?

Also it seems to contradict the concept of Total Depravity. It says "snatched in their innocence". Surley cannot be correct. They were created totally depraved we are told many time on this forum alone.

When non Calvinist argue for the age of innocence and accountability they have always been shot down.

 

[Pinkman]

Originally Posted by heymikey80
Double ....reprobation is the cause of unbelief and ungodliness; that many infant children of believers are snatched in their innocence from their mothers' breasts and cruelly cast into hell so that neither the blood of Christ nor their baptism nor the prayers of the church at their baptism can be of any use to them; and very many other slanderous accusations of this kind which the Reformed churches not only disavow but even denounce with their whole heart.[/color][/indent]


I am fairly certain Calvin would disagree. Institutes book 2 Ch 1 Calvin tells us infants are odious in the sight of God and condemned UNLESS THEY ARE BAPTISED.

 

[AndOne]

Pinkman - question - Do you believe Total Depravity is scriptural?