4-point vs 5-point

[icamewithasword]

Back again, brothers.

Is it the attonement or elect part of the five points that determines 4 or 5 point Calvinists?
I'm gonna show my ignorance here....
But it would seem that you either are or are not a Calvinist....Kind of like being a fundamentalist and and not quite supporting Sola Scriptura.

Which leads to another question.....typically speaking, are all Calvinists fundamentalists? And should all fundamentalists be Cavinists?

If I ask too many questions, just say so

Peace and God bless!
Jesse

 

[xapis]

Back again, brothers.

Is it the attonement or elect part of the five points that determines 4 or 5 point Calvinists?
I'm gonna show my ignorance here....
But it would seem that you either are or are not a Calvinist....Kind of like being a fundamentalist and and not quite supporting Sola Scriptura.

Good question, brother. Some people who deny "limited atonement" (hypothetical universalists) yet adhere to the other four points call themselves "four-point Calvinists." But the proper term for this is Amyraldianism. This teaching seems to have originated at the School of Saumur (France) with a man named Moïse Amyraut.

Which leads to another question.....typically speaking, are all Calvinists fundamentalists? And should all fundamentalists be Cavinists?

Some identify with fundamentalism, but not all. I personally do not. It's not that I disagree with the fundamentalists on doctrine. I am as theologically conservative as they come. It's more about emphasis than anything. The primary founder of my denomination, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, J. Gresham Machen, was sought out to become a leader in the fundamentalist movement. But he shyed away from this because he did not want to identify merely with a handful of "fundamental" doctrines. This is because we are confessionalists. We confess and unite upon so much more than just a few key points of doctrine. A cursory glance at the Westminster Standards will show you that. If you read Machen's magnum opus, Christianity and Liberalism, you'll doubtless become enamored with his zeal for whole of biblical truth.

If I ask too many questions, just say so

Not at all, brother. It's just nice to have peaceful dialogue with a non-Calvinist.

 

[icamewithasword]

I guess I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around this....

If you uphold the doctrine of unconditional election; how could you not uphold the doctrine of limited atonement

That would seem to say that you would have to re-write John 3:16 to state something like "God gave His only begotten Son, that everyone should not perish but have everlasting life". And to do that, you would have to change the Word.
I may be wrong here, but I can't understand God sacrificing His Son for unrepentant sinners. past, present, or future......

God Bless!

 

[xapis]

Well, brother... five-pointers (like me) have a hard time with that sort of inconsistency. That's why we're not four-pointers. I won't pretend to speak or answer for them. We've had a few four-pointers here in this forum in the past but I don't know if any are still around.

 

[icamewithasword]

Well, brother... five-pointers (like me) have a hard time with that sort of inconsistency. That's why we're not four-pointers. I won't pretend to speak or answer for them. We've had a few four-pointers here in this forum in the past but I don't know if any are still around.

I don't wish an arguement with anyone else who may read this post....
But, it would seem to me that the above could be stated:
(IF)...
God predestined that bin Laden would not become a member of the elect. God sacrificed His Son for the sins of bin Laden(?)

Thanks for your help and enlightenment,
God Bless

 

[xapis]

yep... as far as what we believe concerning "limited" atonement, I think a term like particular redemption is more fitting. We're often criticized for placing a limit on the atoning work of Christ. But the fact is that both sides see limits to it. We, with biblical warrant, see limits on the scope of the atonement. They, however, place limits on its power because, with their system, we are left with a Christ who intended to save everyone but was only successful in saving a few.

Whose "limit" gives God all the glory? I think the answer to that question is quite obvious.

He saves all He intended to save.

 

[ReformedChapin]

I am not a 4 point calvinist. But I encounter all the time, they tend to be the "baby calvinist" who are coming out of contemporary christianity. This of course isn't always the case. But 4 pointers argue that scripture makes consistent references as to Christ dying for all. They of course take this term literalisticly and tend to view the atonement differently than traditional 5 pointers.