Calvinism, explained.

[Marvin Knox]

It's not the answer then. doesn't explain Calvininsm or predestination of everything to me.

Whatever that means?????????

 

[jimmyjimmy]

You might be representing Calvin accurately, but you aren't representing Calvinists correctly: they are two different things.

I understand the distinction that you have made, but your statement might be confusing to some people, I think. If you call yourself a Calvinist, you (normally) are saying that you are in agreement with his teaching, which is far more extensive than the content TULIP.

I don't know any Calvinist who holds John Calvin as an authority

If you mean by authority, "an expert on a subject", then you have just met a Calvinist who thinks that John Calvin is an authority: me, and I know many more.

 

[tulipbee]

I understand the distinction that you have made, but your statement might be confusing to some people, I think. If you call yourself a Calvinist, you (normally) are saying that you are in agreement with his teaching, which is far more extensive than the content TULIP.



If you mean by authority, "an expert on a subject", then you have just met a Calvinist who thinks that John Calvin is an authority: me, and I know my more.

Calvin is like a minister to your Church. If one doesn't like Calvin then the one would not like to sit in church and listen to thier pastor. It's odd to say Calvin has authority any more than a preacher has authority. They both proclaim the gospel. So goofy for people here to point fingers at other teachers when they are teaching here, themselves.

 

[EmSw]

...

 

[EmSw]

One more time - and only this once more.

Look it up. The scriptures used to formulate the creed were supplied with the creed when it was finished almost 400 years ago and they are easily available for you if you wish to pursue it.

Okay Marvin, I challenge you to provide scriptures to establish the following from WCF. They should be easily available for you if you wish to pursue it.

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

If you don't wish to look the scriptures up and verify if the Westminster "divines" were scripturally correct in their conclusions - that's completely up to you.

I certainly do not find any scriptures verifying the above. Maybe you will provide us scriptures to verify the 'divines'.

 

[EmSw]

The confusion I see here is great. I've had two 'Calvinists' say predestination is not that important in Calvinist's teaching; however, I see the total opposite on this thread.

 

[Albion]

The confusion I see here is great. I've had two 'Calvinists' say predestination is not that important in Calvinist's teaching; however, I see the total opposite on this thread.

Who are those two, because what I see is people who are NOT identified as Calvinists offering various off-the-cuff analyses of Calvinism or TULIP.

 

[EmSw]

Who are those two, because what I see is people who are NOT identified as Calvinists offering various off-the-cuff analyses of Calvinism or TULIP.

Skala said this in post #93 in 'What about these men' thread -

"Calvinism has little to do with "predestination" or "foreordination".

Here is a quote from nobodysfool (post #114 of the same thread) -

"Predestination is not the focus of my beliefs, nor is it what I would preach about. Where do you get this idea from? Earlier you denied that you focused on predestination, and it was pointed out that you mentioned it 15 times in one post. You're obsessed with it. You have this crazy idea that Calvinists all sit around thinking about predestination. Nothing could be further from the truth!"

It does look like some Calvinist do sit around and think about predestination on this thread.

 

[Albion]

Skala said this in post #93 in 'What about these men' thread -

"Calvinism has little to do with "predestination" or "foreordination".

First, my thanks to you for following up with my request about these posts.

In Skala's post 93, it is clear to me that he's saying that "predestination predestination predestination" is NOT the be-all and end-all of "Calvinism," although you've been trying to make it such. He then went on to explain the "oppposite side of the coin" by pointing to the very positive affirmations about God, salvation, and etc. that predestination is only a small part of.

Here is a quote from nobodysfool (post #114 of the same thread) -

"Predestination is not the focus of my beliefs, nor is it what I would preach about. Where do you get this idea from? Earlier you denied that you focused on predestination, and it was pointed out that you mentioned it 15 times in one post. You're obsessed with it. You have this crazy idea that Calvinists all sit around thinking about predestination. Nothing could be further from the truth!"

It does look like some Calvinist do sit around and think about predestination on this thread.

Here again, they're saying that it's you--not they--who seem, by your many and repetitious posts, to be obsessed with predestination.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

I understand the distinction that you have made, but your statement might be confusing to some people, I think. If you call yourself a Calvinist, you (normally) are saying that you are in agreement with his teaching, which is far more extensive than the content TULIP.



If you mean by authority, "an expert on a subject", then you have just met a Calvinist who thinks that John Calvin is an authority: me, and I know many more.

You being a Presbyterian, I can understand why you are in agreement with most of what Calvin said. I am not, however, as I disagree with things like infant baptism and the immortality of the soul. Calvinism in my mind is TULIP or Sovereign Grace theology, not the entire teachings of Calvin, because if that were the case then I most certainly would not be a Calvinist. By authority I mean being someone one could always rely on for the truth; the Bible is my authority, and I don't believe Calvin in the same way I believe the Bible. He may have got some things right, but certainly not everything, and that is why I make the distinction between Calvin and Calvinists.

In your mind, what must one believe to be considered a Calvinist? TULIP and general ideas about God's sovereignty, or everything Calvin wrote?

 

[Albion]

You being a Presbyterian, I can understand why you are in agreement with most of what Calvin said. I am not, however, as I disagree with things like infant baptism and the immortality of the soul. Calvinism in my mind is TULIP or Sovereign Grace theology, not the entire teachings of Calvin, because if that were the case then I most certainly would not be a Calvinist. By authority I mean being someone one could always rely on for the truth; the Bible is my authority, and I don't believe Calvin in the same way I believe the Bible. He may have got some things right, but certainly not everything, and that is why I make the distinction between Calvin and Calvinists.

Brian can (and I'm sure will) speak for himself, but I'm seeing a rejection of Calvin and Calvinism here on the basis of disagreeing with Calvin and most of the rest of Christianity as well. That seems to make the point for the people on this thread who have said that there's some preoccupation with "Calvinism" that doesn't seem exactly to be about Calvinism!

 

[ToBeLoved]

Whatever that means?????????

I agree. We need to let this specific conversation go and move on.

 

[nobdysfool]

Skala said this in post #93 in 'What about these men' thread -

"Calvinism has little to do with "predestination" or "foreordination".

Here is a quote from nobodysfool (post #114 of the same thread) -

"Predestination is not the focus of my beliefs, nor is it what I would preach about. Where do you get this idea from? Earlier you denied that you focused on predestination, and it was pointed out that you mentioned it 15 times in one post. You're obsessed with it. You have this crazy idea that Calvinists all sit around thinking about predestination. Nothing could be further from the truth!"

It does look like some Calvinist do sit around and think about predestination on this thread.

Since you are obviously focused on, and obsessed with predestination (in a negative sense), it was easy to show that your focus and obsession is wrong-headed. Skala and I are not the only Calvinists (and I'm not even a "real" Calvinist) who don't spend a lot of time thinking about it, or posting about it. There is no need to. What I see here is that you are trying to spin your way out of the hole you dug for yourself. I told you before, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!

 

[jimmyjimmy]

You being a Presbyterian, I can understand why you are in agreement with most of what Calvin said. I am not, however, as I disagree with things like infant baptism and the immortality of the soul. Calvinism in my mind is TULIP or Sovereign Grace theology, not the entire teachings of Calvin, because if that were the case then I most certainly would not be a Calvinist. By authority I mean being someone one could always rely on for the truth; the Bible is my authority, and I don't believe Calvin in the same way I believe the Bible. He may have got some things right, but certainly not everything, and that is why I make the distinction between Calvin and Calvinists.

In your mind, what must one believe to be considered a Calvinist? TULIP and general ideas about God's sovereignty, or everything Calvin wrote?

Firstly, I want to make it clear that I'm only chiming in to be helpful to both sides. So much typing is wasted on CF because we aren't in agreement about terms before beginning to argue. There are many people who are using the term Calvinist, but are not really Calvinists, as most would have defined the term a mere 20 years ago. If my opinion matters, I don't think it's helpful or accurate for Baptists to refer to themselves as Calvinists. Reformed Baptist might fit better.

Agreement with 5 points is merely agreement Calvin's soteriology; however, covent theology plays a vital role in arriving at his soteriology, so can one have Calvin's view of salvation, not have his view on covenants, and yet call himself a Calvinist? It's done all of the time, but it's probably best to avoid it for the sake of clarity.

Lastly, whatever you refer to yourself as, I have far more in common with my Reformed (or Calvinistic) Baptist brothers than I do with most of what the evangelical church has become today.

 

[EmSw]

Since you are obviously focused on, and obsessed with predestination (in a negative sense), it was easy to show that your focus and obsession is wrong-headed. Skala and I are not the only Calvinists (and I'm not even a "real" Calvinist) who don't spend a lot of time thinking about it, or posting about it. There is no need to. What I see here is that you are trying to spin your way out of the hole you dug for yourself. I told you before, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!

Why aren't you focused more on predestination? Your whole life revolves around it. Do you wonder why do the things you do? Do you wonder why others do the things they do? Do you ever think about your salvation and how it was predestined?

As I said, predestination is the foundation of Calvinism. You walk on it everyday.

 

[EmSw]

You said, "Not importantant to Calvin's teachings

Not important as they do not think about it everyday.

 

[EmSw]

First, my thanks to you for following up with my request about these posts.

You're welcome.

In Skala's post 93, it is clear to me that he's saying that "predestination predestination predestination" is NOT the be-all and end-all of "Calvinism," although you've been trying to make it such. He then went on to explain the "oppposite side of the coin" by pointing to the very positive affirmations about God, salvation, and etc. that predestination is only a small part of.

I don't think predestination is a 'small part' of salvation...etc. at all. It's the very foundation upon which Calvinism is built.

Here again, they're saying that it's you--not they--who seem, by your many and repetitious posts, to be obsessed with predestination.

Perhaps you haven't been reading this post.

 

[ToBeLoved]

First, my thanks to you for following up with my request about these posts.

In Skala's post 93, it is clear to me that he's saying that "predestination predestination predestination" is NOT the be-all and end-all of "Calvinism," although you've been trying to make it such. He then went on to explain the "oppposite side of the coin" by pointing to the very positive affirmations about God, salvation, and etc. that predestination is only a small part of.


Here again, they're saying that it's you--not they--who seem, by your many and repetitious posts, to be obsessed with predestination.

Why do so many Calvinist bring it up then? 'chosen' 'elect' 'called' 'regeneration' It's all over in most any thread about salvation. We cannot get away from them.

So when they preach it WITH salvation. And tie it to faith that one would have if they were elect, given to them by God. Or that those who come to Christ were predestined before the earth to do so. Only one who has been called by Christ comes to faith.

It's that *stuff that is at the heart of this conversation. Why not keep their predestination stuff out of the conversation and I do not beleive that most will care if they are Calvinist or not.

 

[nobdysfool]

Why aren't you focused more on predestination? Your whole life revolves around it. Do you wonder why do the things you do? Do you wonder why others do the things they do? Do you ever think about your salvation and how it was predestined?

As I said, predestination is the foundation of Calvinism. You walk on it everyday.

That's your false impression, something you want desperately to be true, so you have something to rail against. I rarely think of it, more times than not only because someone like you, who has such a distorted and skewed view of Reformed theology, keep trying to make an issue out of it with false statements, uninformed assumptions, and is obsessed with it like you are. The rest of the time, I don't think about it, nor do I need to. I have faith that things are unfolding exactly as God has ordained, and when I catch a glimpse of His Hand in a situation, I give thanks. I give thanks for His Salvation of me, and rest in it.

You, on the other hand, are obsessed with something that most people don't think about, but it seems that you are on a crusade to stamp out predestination, because you're worried that someone, somewhere, might believe it, and be thinking about it in a positive light.

Predestination is NOT the foundation of Calvinism. The T in the TULIP is the hinge on which the whole gate swings. Total Inability. Not UTTER Inability. Not UTTER Depravity. Total, meaning that the totality of man, his whole being, is affected by sin. Man is born in sin, a sinner at birth by nature, a nature which manifests itself at the earliest opportunity. Adam and Eve reproduced after their own kind, as with every other living thing. Their offspring were as they were, sinners.

Everything else in Calvinism builds off that that core teaching, the Total Depravity of man, which prevents him from being able to please God in anything he does on his own.

 

[nobdysfool]

Why do so many Calvinist bring it up then? 'chosen' 'elect' 'called' 'regeneration' It's all over in most any thread about salvation. We cannot get away from them.

Mostly because the non- and anti-Calvinists keep bringing it up!

So when they preach it WITH salvation. And tie it to faith that one would have if they were elect, given to them by God. Or that those who come to Christ were predestined before the earth to do so. Only one who has been called by Christ comes to faith.

Contrary to false rumors, Predestination is not something that Calvinists preach when preaching the Gospel. And it is disingenuous to say that they "should" or they "must" preach it, as anyone's predestination is only evident in retrospect to us. No one knows beforehand. We preach the Gospel,. and those whom He has foreordained to come, will believe. And sometimes it's not always at that moment, it might just be a seed being planted, that will come forth later. That's the problem with the formulaic "say the sinner's prayer and you're saved" type of preaching going on nowadays.

It's that *stuff that is at the heart of this conversation. Why not keep their predestination stuff out of the conversation and I do not beleive that most will care if they are Calvinist or not.

Then don't bring it up!