Am I a Calvinist?

[mark kennedy]

I am getting a little confused because no matter where I start in the theological labyrinth I always end up retreating to Calvinism, finding the high ground and taking my stand alongside a Calvinist teacher. It would not be so bad if it were not every single time.

I want Calvinists to investigate me, interrogate me, prosecute me and if I be guilty as charged, condemn me as a Calvinist. I know that sounds like I see it as a bad thing but you have to admit, total depravity can come off a bit fatalistic.

I'm serious about this and have no idea where to start. I don't know if this is going to fly in a casual discussion forum but what about a mock trial? I want someone to investigate me for suspect Calvinist beliefs, anyone want to play prosecutor?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[AMR]

Mark,

If you agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith you are guilty of being a Calvinist and even more, guilty of being a Reformed one, too.

 

[Jeffersonian]

Mark,

If you agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith you are guilty of being a Calvinist and even more, guilty of being a Reformed one, too.

well.. too months ago i find out that am GUILTY

 

[lesliedellow]

I am getting a little confused because no matter where I start in the theological labyrinth I always end up retreating to Calvinism, finding the high ground and taking my stand alongside a Calvinist teacher. It would not be so bad if it were not every single time.

I want Calvinists to investigate me, interrogate me, prosecute me and if I be guilty as charged, condemn me as a Calvinist. I know that sounds like I see it as a bad thing but you have to admit, total depravity can come off a bit fatalistic.

Why does it matter what label you wear? If you are in broad agreement with calvinists, but still have bones to pick with them, what's wrong with that?

 

[blissfulwife]

Mark,

If you agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith you are guilty of being a Calvinist and even more, guilty of being a Reformed one, too.

I have some reading to do via your link. Thanks

Serious Question?
Don't most protestants believe most of what you all believe.

 

[BrotherBob]

Just subscribing.

 

[AMR]

I have some reading to do via your link. Thanks

Serious Question?
Don't most protestants believe most of what you all believe.

No, I do not think most Protestants do believe most of what the Calvinist would believe. Calvinists do come in many shapes, both among Baptist, Independent, and Presbyterians:

Presbyterian and Reformed Churches

I suspect among the millions of Calvinists there are more Arminians, who would deny the doctrines of grace as they are understood by the Reformed.

 

[AMR]

I have some reading to do via your link.

Shaw's exposition of the WCF is also highly recommended:

An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith

 

[epistemaniac]

blissfulwife... I think that soon after the Reformation took place most Protestants believed as Calvinists do, sure there were some differences between Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, but they agreed on issues like monergistic regeneration and the bondage of the will... So to be a Protestant was just about synonymous with being "Reformed". However, eventually, perhaps especially after the Second Great Awakening led by the infamous Charles Finney, the balance towards persons adhering to Arminianism/Semi-Pelagianism shifted until most mainline denominations (and even independent unaffiliated churches) came to adopt an Arminian/Semi soteriology. Today Arminianism is the majority report among Protestants, and given a similar understanding among Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, this puts Calvinists in an even smaller minority amongst Christians..

 

[twin1954]

I am getting a little confused because no matter where I start in the theological labyrinth I always end up retreating to Calvinism, finding the high ground and taking my stand alongside a Calvinist teacher. It would not be so bad if it were not every single time.

I want Calvinists to investigate me, interrogate me, prosecute me and if I be guilty as charged, condemn me as a Calvinist. I know that sounds like I see it as a bad thing but you have to admit, total depravity can come off a bit fatalistic.

I'm serious about this and have no idea where to start. I don't know if this is going to fly in a casual discussion forum but what about a mock trial? I want someone to investigate me for suspect Calvinist beliefs, anyone want to play prosecutor?

Grace and peace,
Mark

As short as you can explain Rom. 5:10-21, 8:29-30, 9:4-23, Eph. 1:3-6. Your understanding of those passages of Scripture will either convict you as a Calvinist or leave you in free-will.

 

[Jeffersonian]

i read the whole westminster confessions of faith and i agree with almost all of it. later, i will go to the ''presby'' forum to make question about it. i have to say that the doctrines of grace are the most beautiful thing i ever learned.

 

[AMR]

i have to say that the doctrines of grace are the most beautiful thing i ever learned.

Amen!

T = The Problem (Total Depravity) – Grace Needed

U = The Remedy (Unconditional Election) – Grace Conceived

L = The Means (Limited Atonement) – Grace Merited

I = The Application (Irresistible Grace) – Grace Applied

P = The Result (Perseverance of the Saints) – Grace Preserved

 

[mark kennedy]

As short as you can explain Rom. 5:10-21, 8:29-30, 9:4-23, Eph. 1:3-6. Your understanding of those passages of Scripture will either convict you as a Calvinist or leave you in free-will.

For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. (Romans 5:10-11)​

Saved by grace through faith, by the will of the Father, work of the Son and the power of the Holy Spirit. Got no issues there, understand and agree with this one wholeheartedly. However, I must confess I have spent a good deal more time discussing this part of the passage:

Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— (Rom. 5:12)​

Usually summarize it this way:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).​

Seen this as a core issue in the origins theology debates I have had for years now.

Still not sure what it is about grace I might be missing. Grace not only saves us but sanctifies us, apart from Christ we can do nothing and to make myself clear, your merit counts for nothing. If one were to ask the Apostle Paul how it is that he worked so hard and suffered so much and bringing so many the Gospel, he would, and did, tell us that it is by grace.

But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. (I Cor. 15:10)​

Recently I heard R.C. Sproul discussing the conflict between the Pauline doctrine of justification by grace, I personally see no problem. A good working definition for grace is 'unmerited favor', Paul worked in the ministry field by grace alone and he is crystal clear on this point. The merits of Christian ministry are Christ's alone we can add nothing. James in speaking to believers who were obviously showing favoritism was simply telling them that this is not how saving faith works. He was outraged that a wealthy Christian could teach a poor Christian as inferior when they themselves apart from Christ are poor, pitiful, blind and naked.

Anyway, I'm posting the opening of this section of the Westminster Confession exposition by Robert Shaw, provided by AMR earlier in the thread.

I started a thread in Origins Theology on the topic just to see what kind of a response I get.

At any rate, enjoying the comments so far.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[twin1954]

For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. (Romans 5:10-11)
​

Saved by grace through faith, by the will of the Father, work of the Son and the power of the Holy Spirit. Got no issues there, understand and agree with this one wholeheartedly. However, I must confess I have spent a good deal more time discussing this part of the passage:

Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— (Rom. 5:12)
​

Usually summarize it this way:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).
​

Seen this as a core issue in the origins theology debates I have had for years now.

Still not sure what it is about grace I might be missing. Grace not only saves us but sanctifies us, apart from Christ we can do nothing and to make myself clear, your merit counts for nothing. If one were to ask the Apostle Paul how it is that he worked so hard and suffered so much and bringing so many the Gospel, he would, and did, tell us that it is by grace.

But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. (I Cor. 15:10)
​

Recently I heard R.C. Sproul discussing the conflict between the Pauline doctrine of justification by grace, I personally see no problem. A good working definition for grace is 'unmerited favor', Paul worked in the ministry field by grace alone and he is crystal clear on this point. The merits of Christian ministry are Christ's alone we can add nothing. James in speaking to believers who were obviously showing favoritism was simply telling them that this is not how saving faith works. He was outraged that a wealthy Christian could teach a poor Christian as inferior when they themselves apart from Christ are poor, pitiful, blind and naked.

Anyway, I'm posting the opening of this section of the Westminster Confession exposition by Robert Shaw, provided by AMR earlier in the thread.

I started a thread in Origins Theology on the topic just to see what kind of a response I get.

At any rate, enjoying the comments so far.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I asked about those passages because the Rom. 5 passage deals with Federal Headship, Rom. 8 the issue of foreknowledge,Rom 9 with God's purpose of grace and Eph.1 electing love. You asked that we that we put you on trial, so to speak, but you answered like a politician. There was nothing definitive in your answer to determine either way. Be clear when you speak and leave no doubt where you stand on the truth of the Gospel. I would much rather that folks hate me and want to kill me for the clear and unmistakable truth I speak than to leave them in doubt or deceived. I care too much for the souls of men to be unclear.

 

[mark kennedy]

Serious Question?
Don't most protestants believe most of what you all believe.

That would seem to be the idea, another word for it would be Protestant Reform. I looked it up on New Advent, a Catholic website and they didn't have any real articles on the Westminster Confession. Justification by faith alone and Church organization would seem to be the biggest issues there.

What I think it is, the Westminster Confession is a creed that expresses the convictions of Protestant Reform.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I asked about those passages because the Rom. 5 passage deals with Federal Headship, Rom. 8 the issue of foreknowledge,Rom 9 with God's purpose of grace and Eph.1 electing love. You asked that we that we put you on trial, so to speak, but you answered like a politician. There was nothing definitive in your answer to determine either way. Be clear when you speak and leave no doubt where you stand on the truth of the Gospel. I would much rather that folks hate me and want to kill me for the clear and unmistakable truth I speak than to leave them in doubt or deceived. I care too much for the souls of men to be unclear.

Wow! What an interesting response. Never really thought of Romans 5 in terms of Federal Headship, 'inheritance' seems like a better description. Foreknowledge is easy, God 'ordained' that we be the righteousness of God in Christ. God required that we be perfect, a condition described in the NT as 'righteousness'. God always knew because it never changes. Romans 8 has always been more like a hymn or a psalm to me, a celebration of salvation.

Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. (Romans 9:18)​

Grace is a part of the very name of God:

And the LORD said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (Exodus 33:19)​

We can quibble over why Israel rejected the Gospel and the Gentiles received it, Paul did because this fact tortured him. It is in the hand of the potter what he makes with the clay. The fact is that the unbelief of those who rejected the Gospel in the New Testament are not that much different then the one Moses called, 'stiff neck and rebellious'. We should receive our salvation with fear and trembling since even our faith is a miracle, a gift of grace and our only vehicle to the gifts of the Holy Spirit that are synonymous with grace.

The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12), It looks something like this:

1) Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
2) Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
3) All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
4) Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
5) Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
6) Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
7) The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
8) Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved.​

I have never budged on justification by faith, nothing can be added to it. We are wretched (Rom 6) and incapable of fulfilling the righteous requirements of the law. It is the conviction that comes from our spiritual destitution that calls us to repentance by God the Father, our realization that in Christ alone is the righteousness of God (Romans 3:21-23). Then and only then can we receive the Holy Spirit of promise who washes, renews and regenerates us (Titus 3:5).

All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. (Acts 10:43:44)​

Faith is an act of obedience, (John 7:38; Acts 16:31). This is the specific act of faith by which a sinner is justified before God (Rom. 3:22, 25; Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:9; John 3:16-36; Acts 10:43; 16:31). What is more this passage directly ties the reception of the Holy Spirit with receiving the Holy Spirit which is the seal that guarantees our inheritance till the redemption of the purchased possession (Eph 1:13). That is after you 'trusted' and that being 'after you heard the word' which is this passage is before they received water baptism.

He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:3-7)​

Saving faith is never alone, it is followed immediately by the dwelling of the Holy Spirit. The problem is not whether or not faith and justification are alone but what must be included for the surety of your salvation. Mixing Horse manure and ice cream will not hurt the manure but it will ruin the ice cream is how I have heard it expressed. We dare not mix the works of the Law with the righteousness that comes by faith. We must not drift into a Pelegian error that makes us the reason for our salvation, it is grace that saves us, it is grace that sanctifies us and grace that empowers us for service.

Righteousness was always intended to be a free gift, even if Adam and Eve had not sinned, it would be by Christ alone. Federal Headship is a bit vague, when I consider Roman's 5 I think in terms of original sin. Sin and death came by the disobedience (trespass) of one man and salvation came by the second Adam, Christ. In Roman's 6 Paul starts with 'What then shall we say', what he is really saying is, what then shall we teach.

Christ alone, grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Anoetos]

Here is a good place to start: which comes first? Faith or regeneration?

 

[mark kennedy]

blissfulwife... I think that soon after the Reformation took place most Protestants believed as Calvinists do, sure there were some differences between Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, but they agreed on issues like monergistic regeneration and the bondage of the will... So to be a Protestant was just about synonymous with being "Reformed". However, eventually, perhaps especially after the Second Great Awakening led by the infamous Charles Finney, the balance towards persons adhering to Arminianism/Semi-Pelagianism shifted until most mainline denominations (and even independent unaffiliated churches) came to adopt an Arminian/Semi soteriology. Today Arminianism is the majority report among Protestants, and given a similar understanding among Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, this puts Calvinists in an even smaller minority amongst Christians..

I was under the impression that John Wesley and Johnathan Edwards led the Great Awakening I and II. Anyway, Finney really contributed nothing but emotionalism to the revivalist fervor that sweep the colonies. Revivalism would continue and does continue to the day. I don't think I consider Finney to be infamous, just something of a sensationalist.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Foghorn]

Here is a good place to start: which comes first? Faith or regeneration?

Yes, I'd say the answer to this is a dead give away!