Calvinism, explained.

[Marvin Knox]

I'm not trying to get into any discussion (I haven't been very helpful), but I found this web article very accurate in describing what I as a Reformed Christian believe.

http://www.reformedreader.org/t.u.l.i.p.htm

I want to stress the fact that there is no need for division just because we don't share the same views on mankind's nature or God's sovereignty. I was not saved Reformed, but rather with a simple belief in Jesus Christ as my savior. I hope there can be unity and friendliness on this thread.

God bless.

That's an excellent article. I always enjoyed James Montgomery Boice whenever I heard him on the radio over the years. He has a very distinctive delivery. He writes well also.

Personally I view "limited atonement in a different light than he does. In fact I view it a little differently than most Calvinists do.

But the article is still a very fine summation of the basic points of Reformed theology.

I agree with you that there need not be a great deal of division over these doctrines. Civil discussion can and does take place between people of different views - both here and elsewhere.

But there are some who will not only not discuss Reformed theology considerately - their non-Reformed theology actually goes much farther afield than "Arminians" in general do.

The Arminian remonstrants would roll over in their graves if they thought their views on salvation were being lumped in with the "works" oriented gospel fielded here by a few in particular.

What you are often and sadly witnessing here in this section of the forum is a combination of discussion concerning the doctrines of grace as viewed by Calvinists and non Calvinists - combined - with a defense of the gospel of grace, and justification by faith alone, as viewed by both Calvinists and non Calvinists in general against the onslaught of what I consider another gospel.

That gospel really isn't "good news" at all. If allowed to flourish without opposition it would be very "bad news" indeed.

It gets much more sticky than normal at times because of that added element IMO.

 

[EmSw]

That's an excellent article. I always enjoyed James Montgomery Boice whenever I heard him on the radio over the years. He has a very distinctive delivery. He writes well also.

Personally I view "limited atonement in a different light than he does. In fact I view it a little differently than most Calvinists do.

What I'm wondering Marvin, is why can't God get His people to believe the same thing. Is He powerless to do that? Why would He have His people believing different things? This causes a lot of confusion among His people. One of the most famous disagreements is between two Reformed believers, Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til. This is no small controversy, and has caused a lot of confusion among the Reformed.

Can you explain why the Reformed can't agree on beliefs. If all things come from God, this makes God the author of confusion. Why do you disagree on some Calvinist beliefs?

But the article is still a very fine summation of the basic points of Reformed theology.

I agree with you that there need not be a great deal of division over these doctrines. Civil discussion can and does take place between people of different views - both here and elsewhere.

But there are some who will not only not discuss Reformed theology considerately - their non-Reformed theology actually goes much farther afield than "Arminians" in general do.

Marvin, the Reformed do not know what other 'Calvinists' believe. One believes in limited atonement, others do not. Some believe in Presuppositionalism, some do not. Can you defend Van Til's beliefs? Clark's? Do you even know what all they believed?

The Arminian remonstrants would roll over in their graves if they thought their views on salvation were being lumped in with the "works" oriented gospel fielded here by a few in particular.

I think John Calvin would roll over in his grave if he knew the modern Reformed views and how many do not follow his writings.

What you are often and sadly witnessing here in this section of the forum is a combination of discussion concerning the doctrines of grace as viewed by Calvinists and non Calvinists - combined - with a defense of the gospel of grace, and justification by faith alone, as viewed by both Calvinists and non Calvinists in general against the onslaught of what I consider another gospel.

Marvin, only God determines if 'another' gospel exists. I guarantee, whatever man perceives in his frail mind, it will not know every detail and intention of another's heart.

That gospel really isn't "good news" at all. If allowed to flourish without opposition it would be very "bad news" indeed.

It gets much more sticky than normal at times because of that added element IMO.

Are you saying salvation depends upon what a man believes? I thought it was grace, which does not involve man at all. If a man did good works towards salvation, will that damn him to hell?

 

[Marvin Knox]

What I'm wondering Marvin, is why can't God get His people to believe the same thing. Is He powerless to do that? Why would He have His people believing different things?

The idea of God testing His people goes all through the scriptures from start to finish in case you hadn't noticed.

Rather than quote you a dozen or so clear statements concerning that - I'll just refer you to the first book and you can consider that dangerous tree and talking snake God placed in the garden.

If you don't realize that the book could have been written more clear than it has been or that doctrine could be made more clear if God wanted to do so - you just haven't been paying attention to how the Bible is laid out.

One of the most famous disagreements is between two Reformed believers, Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til. This is no small controversy, and has caused a lot of confusion among the Reformed............Some believe in Presuppositionalism, some do not. Can you defend Van Til's beliefs? Clark's? Do you even know what all they believed?

I see you have access to the internet as well.

Why do you disagree on some Calvinist beliefs?

Because some of them are wrong IMO.

Why else would I?

I think John Calvin would roll over in his grave if he knew the modern Reformed views and how many do not follow his writings.

John Calvin taught against limited atonement as it is often taught. He would roll over in his grave if he saw how that doctrine is often taught today.

But then - I don't follow John Calvin or any other person blindly. I just follow what I see the scriptures teaching.

Marvin, only God determines if 'another' gospel exists.

Bingo - and the gospel preached here by some is another gospel according to God's Word.

Are you saying salvation depends upon what a man believes? I thought it was grace, which does not involve man at all.

Absolutely I am saying that.

I am absolutely saying that it is by grace and I am absolutely saying that it does involve man. Admitedly speaking for Calvinists here - no Calvinist that I know of would say otherwise.

Where do you get this stuff?

. If a man did good works towards salvation, will that damn him to hell?

Man does do good works toward salvation. Not only do they not damn him to hell - they prove his faith.

You've been straightened out on these thing many times before. This may be the last time for me - we'll see just how long I can stomach your dishonesty and or density this time around. Things are rapidly coming to end with my conversation with you.

By the way the word salvation is used in some 70 different ways in scriptures. This is something that seems to have escaped you when you formulated your theology concerning that word.

But then you've been schooled quite a few times now on the idea of systematic theology have you not?

 

[EmSw]

The idea of God testing His people goes all through the scriptures from start to finish in case you hadn't noticed.

Rather than quote you a dozen or so clear statements concerning that - I'll just refer you to the first book and you can consider that dangerous tree and talking snake God placed in the garden.

If you don't realize that the book could have been written more clear than it has been or that doctrine could be made more clear if God wanted to do so - you just haven't been paying attention to how the Bible is laid out.

I didn't ask about God testing people. I asked, why can't God get His people to believe the same thing?

I see you have access to the internet as well.

Absolutely! So, are you a follower of Clark or Van Til?

Because some of them are wrong IMO.

Why else would I?

So, you are saying some Calvinists are wrong in their beliefs? Where in the world did all those Calvinists who believe wrong get their doctrine?

John Calvin taught against limited atonement as it is often taught. He would roll over in his grave if he saw how that doctrine is often taught today.

But then - I don't follow John Calvin or any other person blindly. I just follow what I see the scriptures teaching.

I guess you could say there are 'reformed' Calvinists around.

Bingo - and the gospel preached here by some is another gospel according to God's Word.

But not the Gospel Jesus preached. That's the one I follow; whose gospel do you follow?

Absolutely I am saying that.

I am absolutely saying that it is by grace and I am absolutely saying that it does involve man. Admitedly speaking for Calvinists here - no Calvinist that I know of would say otherwise.

Where do you get this stuff?

No Calvinist would say man is not involved in his salvation? Wow, I wonder what those who believe man in not involved in any way think about your statement?

Man does do good works toward salvation. Not only do they not damn him to hell - they prove his faith.

So, what's your beef with me? I told you I believe man does good works toward his salvation.

You've been straightened out on these thing many times before. This may be the last time for me - we'll see just how long I can stomach your dishonesty and or density this time around. Things are rapidly coming to end with my conversation with you.

I wonder how many Calvinists who disagree with you, can stomach your beliefs and density.

By the way the word salvation is used in some 70 different ways in scriptures. This is something that seems to have escaped you when you formulated your theology concerning that word.

But then you've been schooled quite a few times now on the idea of systematic theology have you not?

Systematic theology investigates the development of Christian doctrine over the course of history. Since those who have studied the early church fathers, know they all believed in autonomous free will, I will have to dismiss systematic theology as a weak, and dishonest method of disciplined formulation for the Reformed.

By the way Marvin, what are your views on Calvin's evanscent grace?

 

[nobdysfool]

I didn't ask about God testing people. I asked, why can't God get His people to believe the same thing?

Do you think He should?

Absolutely! So, are you a follower of Clark or Van Til?

Marvin and I are followers of Jesus.

So, you are saying some Calvinists are wrong in their beliefs? Where in the world did all those Calvinists who believe wrong get their doctrine?

Why does it bother you that Calvinists are not all cookie-cutter believers, all saying the exact same thing? If we were, then you would probably trot out the robot argument, but since we are obviously not robots, that argument is useless. We all learn, and grow (or we should) in our understanding and depth of knowledge of God's Word. So there are going to be those who do not believe the same as others at any given point.

I guess you could say there are 'reformed' Calvinists around.

Yes, that can be said. What difference does it make?

But not the Gospel Jesus preached. That's the one I follow; whose gospel do you follow?

That's a loaded question, because it presupposes that you are 100% correct, and if someone believes differently from you, in your mind they cannot be correct, and are therefore preaching another Gospel. That's begging the question, a logical fallacy.

No Calvinist would say man is not involved in his salvation? Wow, I wonder what those who believe man in not involved in any way think about your statement?

No Calvinist that truly understands the Scriptures would deny that man has some involvement in his salvation, if nothing more than receiving it. What you assume about Calvinists is more rightly called, "Hyper-Calvinism", which is really not true Calvinism at all.

So, what's your beef with me? I told you I believe man does good works toward his salvation.

More correctly, man does good works BECAUSE of his salvation. The good works contribute nothing toward his salvation, they are the evidence that he is saved.

I wonder how many Calvinists who disagree with you, can stomach your beliefs and density.

Actually, Marvin is decidedly NOT dense, and over the course of time, he and I are in agreement about a great many things.
Quite frankly, neither Marvin or I are in the least concerned about what other Calvinists may think of us. I know I'm not. What they may think is of no import to me living my life in the Lord, and doing my best to obey, and live by His Precepts. I am not going to be judged on what others have thought of me.

Systematic theology investigates the development of Christian doctrine over the course of history. Since those who have studied the early church fathers, know they all believed in autonomous free will, I will have to dismiss systematic theology as a weak, and dishonest method of disciplined formulation for the Reformed.

Is that how you justify your positions?

By the way Marvin, what are your views on Calvin's evanscent grace?

Not having studied it, at all, my thought on looking up the definition of it, with a quote from Calvin himself, is that he was wrestling with the Lord's reaction to those who say "Lord Lord, did we not do mighty works in your name?", saying "I never knew you, depart from me, you work iniquity". Calvin was trying to explain how that could be, that people could think they were saved, and yet not be. I'm not sure I agree with the idea of "evanescent grace", my own thought is that Calvin got that wrong. I will continue to look into it, though.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I asked, why can't God get His people to believe the same thing?

He could if He wanted to be worshiped by Zombies.

He will after He has purified for His Son a bride.

Do you even listen to others?

Absolutely! So, are you a follower of Clark or Van Til?

Where did I even touch on that subject in my previous post?

For the record - and for the last time - I am a follower of the Word of God.

So, you are saying some Calvinists are wrong in their beliefs? Where in the world did all those Calvinists who believe wrong get their doctrine?

I guess you could say there are 'reformed' Calvinists around.

Some are and some are not. Depends on what you mean by "Calvinists" I suppose.

Some Calvinists have applied human logic beyond what is called for concerning, in particular IMO , "limited atonement".

I guess you could say there are 'reformed' Calvinists around.

Certainly there are.

There are also "Calvinists" who are more inline with what Calvin taught than many 5-point Calvinists of today in some regards.

But not the Gospel Jesus preached. That's the one I follow; whose gospel do you follow?

The gospel of grace.

I
No Calvinist would say man is not involved in his salvation? Wow, I wonder what those who believe man in not involved in any way think about your statement?

All Calvinists, that I am aware of, believe and teach that man is involved in his salvation in some way.

Where do you get the idea that they teach differently?

How much involvement and where it comes in is a bigger subject and one that you seem incapable to discussing intelligently because of your unfounded bias IMO.

So, what's your beef with me? I told you I believe man does good works toward his salvation.

My beef with you is that you steadfastly refuse to place the good works of man toward salvation in the proper perspective vis-a-vis cause and effect - no matter how often you are schooled on the subject .

Systematic theology investigates the development of Christian doctrine over the course of history. Since those who have studied the early church fathers, know they all believed in autonomous free will, I will have to dismiss systematic theology as a weak, and dishonest method of disciplined formulation for the Reformed.

Systematic theology investigates doctrine over the course of the first verses of Genesis through the last verse of Revelation. What you mean by the "course of history" other than that - I have no idea.

If you refuse to look at theology in a systematic way you will never understand doctrine correctly.

The early church fathers believed in free will only as it applies to the creature's relationship to the creator. That is as it should be.

By the way Marvin, what are your views on Calvin's evanscent grace?

The Kingdom of God is presented time and time again in the scriptures as a mixture of good and evil - in which it is often impossible to distinguish one from the other.

There is no doubt in my mind that the tares in the Kingdom of God do not think of themselves are tares but as stalks of wheat.

 

[EmSw]

Do you think He should?

I hope God would predestine and lead His elect to believe the same thing.

Marvin and I are followers of Jesus.

Same here.

Why does it bother you that Calvinists are not all cookie-cutter believers, all saying the exact same thing? If we were, then you would probably trot out the robot argument, but since we are obviously not robots, that argument is useless. We all learn, and grow (or we should) in our understanding and depth of knowledge of God's Word. So there are going to be those who do not believe the same as others at any given point.

Well, there's a lot of confusion with the Reformed beliefs. It's like everyone gets to freely choose what they want to believe. Would you agree with that?

Yes, that can be said. What difference does it make?

What difference did it make that Calvin and Luther decidedly chose to leave and quit adhering to Catholic beliefs?

That's a loaded question, because it presupposes that you are 100% correct, and if someone believes differently from you, in your mind they cannot be correct, and are therefore preaching another Gospel. That's begging the question, a logical fallacy.

Wouldn't anyone be correct to believe in the Gospel Jesus preached?

I find it ironic you said the bolded part above. Isn't this the same thing you believe about me?

No Calvinist that truly understands the Scriptures would deny that man has some involvement in his salvation, if nothing more than receiving it. What you assume about Calvinists is more rightly called, "Hyper-Calvinism", which is really not true Calvinism at all.

I keep seeing on this forum that some Calvinists believe man has nothing to do with his salvation. You all wonder why no one can get the Reformed beliefs correct; things like this are the reason why.

More correctly, man does good works BECAUSE of his salvation. The good works contribute nothing toward his salvation, they are the evidence that he is saved.

Marvin, like me, say it's man who does good works toward salvation. Anyway you put it, man must do good works to attain the resurrection of life.

Actually, Marvin is decidedly NOT dense, and over the course of time, he and I are in agreement about a great many things.
Quite frankly, neither Marvin or I are in the least concerned about what other Calvinists may think of us. I know I'm not. What they may think is of no import to me living my life in the Lord, and doing my best to obey, and live by His Precepts. I am not going to be judged on what others have thought of me.

You two are as concerned as I am, in what others think of our beliefs.

Is that how you justify your positions?

Systematic theology is not my position.

Not having studied it, at all, my thought on looking up the definition of it, with a quote from Calvin himself, is that he was wrestling with the Lord's reaction to those who say "Lord Lord, did we not do mighty works in your name?", saying "I never knew you, depart from me, you work iniquity". Calvin was trying to explain how that could be, that people could think they were saved, and yet not be. I'm not sure I agree with the idea of "evanescent grace", my own thought is that Calvin got that wrong. I will continue to look into it, though.

I believe he also used evanescent grace concerning Hebrew 6:4-6.

It is my belief he was trying to use evanescent grace to show how the totally depraved, unregenerate could possibly prophesy in His name. and in His name cast out devils, and in His name do many wonderful works.

 

[nobdysfool]

I hope God would predestine and lead His elect to believe the same thing.

Obviously, He has something else in mind. He has done and allowed things to be as they are, for a reason that we are not privy to. It may not make any sense to us now, but in retrospect, when we are with Him in glory, it will make perfect sense.

Well, there's a lot of confusion with the Reformed beliefs. It's like everyone gets to freely choose what they want to believe. Would you agree with that?

Isn't that what free will is about?

What difference did it make that Calvin and Luther decidedly chose to leave and quit adhering to Catholic beliefs?

A lot of difference, and for the good.

Wouldn't anyone be correct to believe in the Gospel Jesus preached?

of course, IF that is what they are preaching and believing. But therein lies the rub. We all see things differently. That pesky free will again.

I find it ironic you said the bolded part above. Isn't this the same thing you believe about me?

I have yet to pin down exactly what you do believe. You say contradictory things sometimes, because your focus seems to be to keep Calvinists on the defensive. My point was, the way your question was worded was a logical fallacy, for the reason I gave.

I keep seeing on this forum that some Calvinists believe man has nothing to do with his salvation. You all wonder why no one can get the Reformed beliefs correct; things like this are the reason why.

So you DO think that we should all march in lock step, like robots. Sorry, it will never happen. Not this side of heaven, anyway. I guess you'll just have to deal with it, and quit complaining about it.

Marvin, like me, say it's man who does good works toward salvation. Anyway you put it, man must do good works to attain the resurrection of life.

But I know that he also believes that good works are the result of salvation, not its cause.

You two are as concerned as I am, in what others think of our beliefs.

I really am not that concerned about it. i don't like being misrepresented or lied about, which has happened quite a lot in the 13 years I have been here, but I'm really not focused on what others think of me. There were trolls who claimed that i was running the whole show here, which was ludicrous. I've never even been a Moderator, let alone in a position of authority here, and I don't want the job. I really don't care what others think of me. I don't answer to them. I answer to Jesus.

Systematic theology is not my position.

That explains a lot....

I believe he also used evanescent grace concerning Hebrew 6:4-6.

It is my belief he was trying to use evanescent grace to show how the totally depraved, unregenerate could possibly prophesy in His name. and in His name cast out devils, and in His name do many wonderful works.

As I said, I will have to study it out, but my first reaction is that he was trying to reconcile what seemed to him to be a contradiction. My gut tells me that the answer is simpler than that, although I do not yet know what that answer is.

 

[EmSw]

Obviously, He has something else in mind. He has done and allowed things to be as they are, for a reason that we are not privy to. It may not make any sense to us now, but in retrospect, when we are with Him in glory, it will make perfect sense.

I totally agree with you.

Isn't that what free will is about?

Absolutely. Free will doesn't discriminate against anyone.

of course, IF that is what they are preaching and believing. But therein lies the rub. We all see things differently. That pesky free will again.

The rub indeed. It matters not to me what anyone believes. If anyone believes wrong, then it is by free will they are able to change their minds and believe something different.

This is why no one likes to be 'told' what to do and believe.

Here is an example. Suppose I had the sovereignty and power to change you to believe what I want you to believe against your will? From now on I want you will believe according to my word. I want you to do as I say. I am going to predestine you to conform to my word, and will bring about the circumstances to draw you to my will. It doesn't matter what you believe now; for you will believe as I do, and do it happily.

Would you fight it, or would you conform to my will? Would you rather believe as you do now, or would you rather believe as I do?

Your free will desires to believe as you do now. You would fight against my overpowering will to have you believe as I do. Now if you changed your mind about my beliefs and freely chose to believe as I do, then you can make my beliefs a part of your beliefs, and do it with joy and gladness.

I have yet to pin down exactly what you do believe. You say contradictory things sometimes, because your focus seems to be to keep Calvinists on the defensive. My point was, the way your question was worded was a logical fallacy, for the reason I gave.

I have given many verses to do with casting away iniquities, with humility, about grace, about salvation, about works, and about do good. It shouldn't be too hard to figure out what I believe.

If they seem contradictory, then I apologize for not being clear enough to understand.

So you DO think that we should all march in lock step, like robots. Sorry, it will never happen. Not this side of heaven, anyway. I guess you'll just have to deal with it, and quit complaining about it.

With free will, no one will see the things the same way as others. That's why we are encouraged to study ourselves, to walk in the Light, to pray, to ask, to seek, and to knock.

But I know that he also believes that good works are the result of salvation, not its cause.

Anyway you want to put it, before, during, or after, good works with faith are living and saving.

I really am not that concerned about it. i don't like being misrepresented or lied about, which has happened quite a lot in the 13 years I have been here, but I'm really not focused on what others think of me. There were trolls who claimed that i was running the whole show here, which was ludicrous. I've never even been a Moderator, let alone in a position of authority here, and I don't want the job. I really don't care what others think of me. I don't answer to them. I answer to Jesus.

Amen.

That explains a lot....

I freely choose not to use systematic theology in my search for truth. If you do, that's just fine.

As I said, I will have to study it out, but my first reaction is that he was trying to reconcile what seemed to him to be a contradiction. My gut tells me that the answer is simpler than that, although I do not yet know what that answer is.

If he was trying to reconcile a seeming contradiction, I applaud him. My rub with it, is changing the nature of grace with a new word, and making grace temporary. If grace is temporary, then no has any assurance at all of their salvation.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I hope God would predestine and lead His elect to believe the same thing.

He has. It's spelled out for us in the last part of the Book of Revelation.

Well, there's a lot of confusion with the Reformed beliefs. It's like everyone gets to freely choose what they want to believe. Would you agree with that?

Try looking in "non-Reformed circles" - whatever that means.

The Reformed circle is considerably smaller and less diverse than the non-Reformed circle.

You seem to be unduly concerned comparatively with what Reformed believers teach and how they differ. You have majored on trying to debunk a minor segment of so called "Christendom". In so doing you are IMO straining at a gnat and ignoring much larger camels within the religion.

I'm not sure why that is unless it's because they are so diametrically opposite of your own works oriented way of supposedly making it past the coming judgment.

Systematic theology is not my position.

Therein lies the root of why you don't understand salvation in it's many aspects.

By the way Marvin, what are your views on Calvin's evanscent grace?

I've been hanging around with Calvinists in various ways from personal to college level educational for some 30 or 40 years now.

This word has come up but a couple of times in all those years.

IMO it would be better for you to stick with the basics of the differences between your theology and that of Calvinists and leave peripheral issues alone. It seems obvious, as has been pointed out to you time and time again, that you don't understand clearly the basics of what Reformed theology teaches.

 

[EmSw]

He has. It's spelled out for us in the last part of the Book of Revelation.

Try looking in "non-Reformed circles" - whatever that means.

But, I don't see it now. I see everyone believing the way they desire.

'Non-Reformed' folks believe in autonomous free will, so they can justify various beliefs. Everyone freely chooses as they desire, and not what has been predestined for them to believe.

The Reformed circle is considerably smaller and less diverse than the non-Reformed circle.

Yet, there are many divisions within the Reformed circle.

You seem to be unduly concerned comparatively with what Reformed believers teach and how they differ. You have majored on trying to debunk a minor segment of so called "Christendom". In so doing you are IMO straining at a gnat and ignoring much larger camels within the religion.

Why do you wonder where I freely choose to concentrate my efforts? Am I not allowed to do this? Who ultimately decides where I put my efforts?

I'm not sure why that is unless it's because they are so diametrically opposite of your own works oriented way of supposedly making it past the coming judgment.

Man is judged according to his works. Maybe that is the reason I focus on works so much. I see where evil works send a man. I don't know, but it seems you don't see what evil works do for a man.

As I've said before, evil works will bring a man to the resurrection of condemnation; good works to the resurrection of life. This does not seem to register to you. Without good works, there is no resurrection of life for man. Is this too difficult to understand?

Therein lies the root of why you don't understand salvation in it's many aspects.

So Marvin, if a person does not hold to systematic theology, he will not understand salvation? Is that what you are saying? I say if a man does not believe Jesus' words in John 5:29, he does not understand salvation.

I've been hanging around with Calvinists in various ways from personal to college level educational for some 30 or 40 years now.

This word has come up but a couple of times in all those years.

IMO it would be better for you to stick with the basics of the differences between your theology and that of Calvinists and leave peripheral issues alone. It seems obvious, as has been pointed out to you time and time again, that you don't understand clearly the basics of what Reformed theology teaches.

Then what is your answer to the thousands of Calvinists who followed Calvinism and abandon it later in life? At least, John Calvin tried to answer that. With any answer you give, you are going to have to deny either the 'T' or 'P' in your TULIP formulation.

 

[Patmos]

EmSw,

Reading your posts I get the impression that you consider all Calvinists as either Hyper or lean heavily in that direction. Particularly with regards to hard determinism (robots and puppets etc).

Most Calvinist I have met face to face do seem to lean towards Hyper Calvinism's hard determination but do not seem, or want, to recognise it. Hence many fruitless discusions.

As for those Calvinists that lean away, why not ? It is not as if the Arminian or non Calvinist communities have any kind of unity.

 

[Patmos]

The 'T' or 'P' in your TULIP formulation.

I would love to see a definition of the 'T'. Just to see if those in dabate here are discussing different things.

 

[nobdysfool]

EmSw,

Reading your posts I get the impression that you consider all Calvinists as either Hyper or lean heavily in that direction. Particularly with regards to hard determinism (robots and puppets etc).

And, starting with a biased view, is it any wonder that things are claimed about Calvinists that have no basis in actual fact? That's why we keep hammering home the fact that one who does not even properly understand the doctrine has no authority or credibility to pontificate on it.

Most Calvinist I have met face to face do seem to lean towards Hyper Calvinism's hard determination but do not seem, or want, to recognise it. Hence many fruitless discussions.

You must hang with a strange crowd, then. Many Calvinists start off being a lot more dogmatic until they mature and grow in their walk. They mellow with time, in my experience, and their doctrinal stance mellows and broadens, too. Marvin and I are prime examples.

As for those Calvinists that lean away, why not ? It is not as if the Arminian or non Calvinist communities have any kind of unity.

Touché!

 

[Marvin Knox]

Reading your posts I get the impression that you consider all Calvinists as either Hyper or lean heavily in that direction. Particularly with regards to hard determinism (robots and puppets etc).

He does and that is why he misrepresents the positions of most Reformed people time and time again.

He won't let other people tell him what they believe. He wants to tell other people what they believe according to his opinion.

Most Calvinist I have met face to face do seem to lean towards Hyper Calvinism's hard determination

I've met a lot of people over the years who would, at least reluctantly, accept the label Calvinist. Very few of them hold to hyper Calvinism's hard determinism. I'm not sure what circles you've been running in though.

......but do not seem, or want, to recognise it. Hence many fruitless discusions.

With all due respect - this is the problem. You (like many other non-Calvinists including EmSw) want to reserve the right to tell Calvinists and Reformed believers what they "really" believe. Even when they explain it - their beliefs are dismissed as something they don't have any kind of firm handle on.

With a wink and a nod toward fellow non-Calvinists the Calvinist is dismissed as someone who doesn't really know what he believes.

That makes it very difficult to have a meaningful discussion. And you're right - discussion under those circumstances is usually fruitless.

As for those Calvinists that lean away, why not ? It is not as if the Arminian or non Calvinist communities have any kind of unity.

The VAST majority of Calvinists I know of do lean away from hard determination. And I know and have listened to a whole lot of Calvinists.

While we believe and teach that everything that happens in history was predestined to happen - we do not believe and teach that those things were therefore "scripted" by God.

The will and choices of the creature is often one of the many vehicles that God uses to bring to past what He has predestined to take place.

As soon as I have said that - I can almost hear someone say, "Well yes - you say that. But you really believe such and such." Talk of robots and puppets soon follow and the discussion becomes "fruitless" once again.

 

[EmSw]

I would love to see a definition of the 'T'. Just to see if those in dabate here are discussing different things.

Total depravity (also called total inability or total corruption) is a biblical doctrine closely linked with the doctrine of original sin as formalized by Augustine and advocated in many Protestant confessions of faith and catechisms, especially in Calvinism. The doctrine understands the Bible to teach that, as a consequence of the the Fall of man, every person born into the world is morally corrupt, enslaved to sin and is, apart from the grace of God, utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to turn to Christ in faith for salvation.

This is taken from theopedia.com and is what I understand total depravity to mean. This is what I was referring to when it comes to Calvinists who depart from their former beliefs.

 

[EmSw]

EmSw,

Reading your posts I get the impression that you consider all Calvinists as either Hyper or lean heavily in that direction. Particularly with regards to hard determinism (robots and puppets etc).

Most Calvinist I have met face to face do seem to lean towards Hyper Calvinism's hard determination but do not seem, or want, to recognise it. Hence many fruitless discusions.

As for those Calvinists that lean away, why not ? It is not as if the Arminian or non Calvinist communities have any kind of unity.

I find Calvinism is like a box of chocolates. Some have caramel, some all chocolate, some with nuts, some with cherries...etc.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

He does and that is why he misrepresents the positions of most Reformed people time and time again.

Amen.

I've met a lot of people over the years who would, at least reluctantly, accept the label Calvinist. Very few of them hold to hyper Calvinism's hard determinism.

Amen.

With a wink and a nod toward fellow non-Calvinists the Calvinist is dismissed as someone who doesn't really know what he believes.

Amen.

The VAST majority of Calvinists I know of do lean away from hard determination. And I know and have listened to a whole lot of Calvinists.

Amen.

As soon as I have said that - I can almost hear someone say, "Well yes - you say that. But you really believe such and such." Talk of robots and puppets soon follow and the discussion becomes "fruitless" once again.

Amen.

I don't mind debating with someone who understands my position yet disagrees with it, and I don't mind debating with someone who misunderstands my position, but allows me to correct his misunderstanding of my position, but I do mind intentional disregard for what I/we say about the position I/we hold. The only "cure" for that type of behavior is the ignore button.

 

[EmSw]

He does and that is why he misrepresents the positions of most Reformed people time and time again.

Funny you should say that Marvin. You misrepresent Reformed people by denying limited atonement. Why don't you listen to them and understand what they believe?

He won't let other people tell him what they believe. He wants to tell other people what they believe according to his opinion.

I haven't let you tell me what you believe? I have never told you what to believe Marvin. You choose your fate by freely believing your opinions.

With all due respect - this is the problem. You (like many other non-Calvinists including EmSw) want to reserve the right to tell Calvinists and Reformed believers what they "really" believe. Even when they explain it - their beliefs are dismissed as something they don't have any kind of firm handle on.

Unfortunately, many former Calvinists were in the boat you are now in. They didn't really know what they believed, for they abandoned it, and many have even become critics of Calvinism.

With a wink and a nod toward fellow non-Calvinists the Calvinist is dismissed as someone who doesn't really know what he believes.

Many former Calvinists used to think the same of non-Calvinists.

The VAST majority of Calvinists I know of do lean away from hard determination. And I know and have listened to a whole lot of Calvinists.

This would include former Calvinists also leaned away from hard determination. Have you listened to former Calvinists who used to believe the way you do now?

While we believe and teach that everything that happens in history was predestined to happen - we do not believe and teach that those things were therefore "scripted" by God.

If former Calvinists were predestined to fall away from Calvinism, the preservation of the saints, becomes nothing more than words on a page. I asked you earlier how you justify this walking away, but you didn't answer.

 

[EmSw]

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

I don't mind debating with someone who understands my position yet disagrees with it, and I don't mind debating with someone who misunderstands my position, but allows me to correct his misunderstanding of my position, but I do mind intentional disregard for what I/we say about the position I/we hold. The only "cure" for that type of behavior is the ignore button.

I wonder which box of chocolate you are.