Calvinism, explained.

[ToBeLoved]

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.

I don't get this. If these former Calvinists were predestined, praise God! God's will be done, so how or why would anyone need to justify their walking away?

You said it was predestined.

Maybe we are to bring the Calvinists back into the sheep fold. Baaah

 

[Marvin Knox]

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

This entire post is so full of silly things you say that I don't even know where to start.

I see you've got a new angle about "former Calvinists" etc. and you intend to refer to it again and again even if what you say and ask is down right incomprehensible.

I wonder which box of chocolate you are

For a while your questions and statements seemed to be lucid. I was rather enjoying trying to set you straight.

But you've just jumped the tracks again.

That'll do it for me for this time around.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I don't get this. If these former Calvinists were predestined, praise God! God's will be done, so how or why would anyone need to justify their walking away?

You said it was predestined.

Maybe we are to bring the Calvinists back into the sheep fold. Baaah

No one whom God has regenerated is lost.

There are both sheep and goats in the SAME PEW. We all know that, I hope. Some appear to be sheep, but they are not. That's all. Simple as can be.

 

[Patmos]

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.

Wish I could meet the more mellow ones. My ex Pastor for instance is heading more into hard determinism. He is a young guy, not ordained, no Bible college. Since he replaced the retired Pastor several other churches have befitted from new members.

Marvin and I are prime examples.

Yes.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Wish I could meet the more mellow ones. My ex Pastor for instance is heading more into hard determinism. He is a young guy, not ordained, no Bible colleges. Since he replaced the retired Pastor several other churches have befitted from new members.

Count me in. I'm not mellow in personality, but my Calvinism is defined as "moderate". It's about the only thing I am moderate in.

This chart, which I'm sure at least some will find fault with, is helpful in distinguishing types, or degrees of Calvinism as well as Arminianism.

1. Hyper-Calvinism

Beliefs: God is the author of sin and man has no responsibility before God. The Gospel should only preached to the elect. i.e. duty faith. and anti-missionary Belief in the five points is a prerequisite for true salvation, also known as Neo-Gnostic Calvinism. Proponents: Joseph Hussey John Skepp and some English primitive Baptists.

2. Ultra High Calvinism

Beliefs: That the elect are in some sense eternally justified. A denial of: The Well– Meant Offer; Common Grace; and God having any love for the non-elect. Proponents: John Gill, some ministers in the Protestant Reformed Church of America

3. High Calvinism

Beliefs: That God in no sense desires to save the reprobate, Most deny the Well-Meant Offer. Supralapsarian viewing God’s decrees. All hold to limited atonement. Most believe in particular grace and see the atonement as sufficient only for the elect. Proponents: Theodore Beza, Gordon Clark, Arthur Pink

4. Moderate Calvinism

Beliefs: That God does in some sense desires to save the reprobate, Infralapsarian in viewing God’s decrees. Affirms Common Grace. Proponents: John Calvin (some argue that he was a High-Calvinist), John Murray, RL Dabney

5. Low Calvinism

Beliefs: That Christ died for all in a legal sense, so one can speak of Christ dying for the non-elect. That God has two distinct wills. Affirms the Well-Meant Offer and Common Grace, Proponents: Amyraldrians , RT Kendal

6. Lutheranism

Beliefs: That Calvinist over emphasize God Sovereignty over man’s responsibility. That Christ died for all in legal sense, that some are predestined on to life but none are predestined onto death. That the sacraments are means of grace regardless of one’s faith. Proponents: Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, Rod Rosenbladt

7. American Baptist

Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. Once a persons believes the gospel, he is eternally secure. Rejects Calvinism, some would even call it heretical. Proponents: Jerry Falwell, Adrian Rogers

8. Arminianism

Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is solely based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. A person can fall from the state of grace i.e. lose ones salvation, since it is our free will that chooses Christ at conversion. Proponents: Jacob Arminius, John Wesley some Methodists

copyright Rev Jonathan James Goundry

 

[Patmos]

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.

This definition of TD is the 'Total Evil' version. Total inability referring to hard determinism.

Here is a another version. I am quoting Calvinist Randy Alcorne's book 'hand in Hand' page 67.

The term total depravity never made sense to me, because it suggests "completely evil"....No one sins all the time. - even unregenerate people can make good choices. Can an unbelieving alcoholic stay sober? Absolutely. As recovery groups demonstrate, millions of unbelievers have learned to make choices contrary to their temptations. We're sinners, of course. But if we are all as depraved as could be - totally depraved - human society could not exist.
I eventually came to realise that what Calvinists, and some Arminians (including John Wesley), call "total depravity" really means "total inability" to work our way to Gods favour.

My point is different people have different interpretations. And not just of TD. Unless you all are debating the same interpretation, debate is never going to get anywhere.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

This definition of TD is the 'Total Evil' version. Total inability referring to hard determinism.

Here is a another version. I am quoting Calvinist Randy Alcorne's book 'hand in Hand' page 67.

The term total depravity never made sense to me, because it suggests "completely evil"....No one sins all the time. - even unregenerate people can make good choices. Can an unbelieving alcoholic stay sober? Absolutely. As recovery groups demonstrate, millions of unbelievers have learned to make choices contrary to their temptations. We're sinners, of course. But if we are all as depraved as could be - totally depraved - human society could not exist.
I eventually came to realise that what Calvinists, and some Arminians (including John Wesley), call "total depravity" really means "total inability" to work our way to Gods favour.

My point is different people have different interpretations. And not just of TD. Unless you all are debating the same interpretation, debate is never going to get anywhere.

TD obviously doesn't mean that we are as evil as we possibly can be. It means that sin has permitted every part of us. We are stained, and damaged because of it. R.C. Spiral refers to it as. "Radical Corruption".

I like to replace the term total depravity with my favorite designation, which is radical corruption. Ironically, the word radical has its roots in the Latin word for “root,” which is radix, and it can be translated root or core. The term radical has to do with something that permeates to the core of a thing. It’s not something that is tangential or superficial, lying on the surface. http://www.ligonier.org/blog/tulip-and-reformed-theology-total-depravity/​

 

[Patmos]

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.

Hard line dogmatic circles, unfortunately for me.

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.

No, I definitely do not want to do this. Not one bit. Different people of the same persuasion believe different things. The problem - IMO - is some do not know what they are talking about - whether they claim they are Calvinist or Arminian. The only reason I hesitate to call myself Arminian is because I have met so many who have no idea about e.g Jacob Arminius.

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.

Music to my ears. My favourite theologians is Charles Spurgeon.

... "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.

This is why I have bought several copies of the book you recommended to me - 'hand on Hand'. My ex Pastor will be the first to receive one from me.

 

[Patmos]

Count me in. I'm not mellow in personality, but my Calvinism is defined as "moderate". It's about the only thing I am moderate in.

This chart, which I'm sure at least some will find fault with, is helpful in distinguishing types, or degrees of Calvinism as well as Arminianism.

1. Hyper-Calvinism

Beliefs: God is the author of sin and man has no responsibility before God. The Gospel should only preached to the elect. i.e. duty faith. and anti-missionary Belief in the five points is a prerequisite for true salvation, also known as Neo-Gnostic Calvinism. Proponents: Joseph Hussey John Skepp and some English primitive Baptists.

2. Ultra High Calvinism

Beliefs: That the elect are in some sense eternally justified. A denial of: The Well– Meant Offer; Common Grace; and God having any love for the non-elect. Proponents: John Gill, some ministers in the Protestant Reformed Church of America

3. High Calvinism

Beliefs: That God in no sense desires to save the reprobate, Most deny the Well-Meant Offer. Supralapsarian viewing God’s decrees. All hold to limited atonement. Most believe in particular grace and see the atonement as sufficient only for the elect. Proponents: Theodore Beza, Gordon Clark, Arthur Pink

4. Moderate Calvinism

Beliefs: That God does in some sense desires to save the reprobate, Infralapsarian in viewing God’s decrees. Affirms Common Grace. Proponents: John Calvin (some argue that he was a High-Calvinist), John Murray, RL Dabney

5. Low Calvinism

Beliefs: That Christ died for all in a legal sense, so one can speak of Christ dying for the non-elect. That God has two distinct wills. Affirms the Well-Meant Offer and Common Grace, Proponents: Amyraldrians , RT Kendal

6. Lutheranism

Beliefs: That Calvinist over emphasize God Sovereignty over man’s responsibility. That Christ died for all in legal sense, that some are predestined on to life but none are predestined onto death. That the sacraments are means of grace regardless of one’s faith. Proponents: Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, Rod Rosenbladt

7. American Baptist

Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. Once a persons believes the gospel, he is eternally secure. Rejects Calvinism, some would even call it heretical. Proponents: Jerry Falwell, Adrian Rogers

8. Arminianism

Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is solely based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. A person can fall from the state of grace i.e. lose ones salvation, since it is our free will that chooses Christ at conversion. Proponents: Jacob Arminius, John Wesley some Methodists

copyright Rev Jonathan James Goundry

Perhaps make this a 'sticky' at the start of this forum.

 

[Patmos]

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

I find Arminianism can be like a fruit and nut cake.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I find Arminianism can be like a fruit and nut cake.

I'm not familiar with that expression. What does it mean? I hate fruit cake, BTW

 

[EmSw]

I find Arminianism can be like a fruit and nut cake.

Like thatbrian, what is the meaning of your proverb?

 

[EmSw]

Count me in. I'm not mellow in personality, but my Calvinism is defined as "moderate". It's about the only thing I am moderate in.

This chart, which I'm sure at least some will find fault with, is helpful in distinguishing types, or degrees of Calvinism as well as Arminianism.

1. Hyper-Calvinism

Beliefs: God is the author of sin and man has no responsibility before God. The Gospel should only preached to the elect. i.e. duty faith. and anti-missionary Belief in the five points is a prerequisite for true salvation, also known as Neo-Gnostic Calvinism. Proponents: Joseph Hussey John Skepp and some English primitive Baptists.

2. Ultra High Calvinism

Beliefs: That the elect are in some sense eternally justified. A denial of: The Well– Meant Offer; Common Grace; and God having any love for the non-elect. Proponents: John Gill, some ministers in the Protestant Reformed Church of America

3. High Calvinism

Beliefs: That God in no sense desires to save the reprobate, Most deny the Well-Meant Offer. Supralapsarian viewing God’s decrees. All hold to limited atonement. Most believe in particular grace and see the atonement as sufficient only for the elect. Proponents: Theodore Beza, Gordon Clark, Arthur Pink

4. Moderate Calvinism

Beliefs: That God does in some sense desires to save the reprobate, Infralapsarian in viewing God’s decrees. Affirms Common Grace. Proponents: John Calvin (some argue that he was a High-Calvinist), John Murray, RL Dabney

5. Low Calvinism

Beliefs: That Christ died for all in a legal sense, so one can speak of Christ dying for the non-elect. That God has two distinct wills. Affirms the Well-Meant Offer and Common Grace, Proponents: Amyraldrians , RT Kendal

6. Lutheranism

Beliefs: That Calvinist over emphasize God Sovereignty over man’s responsibility. That Christ died for all in legal sense, that some are predestined on to life but none are predestined onto death. That the sacraments are means of grace regardless of one’s faith. Proponents: Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, Rod Rosenbladt

7. American Baptist

Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. Once a persons believes the gospel, he is eternally secure. Rejects Calvinism, some would even call it heretical. Proponents: Jerry Falwell, Adrian Rogers

8. Arminianism

Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is solely based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. A person can fall from the state of grace i.e. lose ones salvation, since it is our free will that chooses Christ at conversion. Proponents: Jacob Arminius, John Wesley some Methodists

copyright Rev Jonathan James Goundry

Thanks thatbrian for this list. I didn't know there were that many divisions among the Calvinist. Where are most of them getting their teachings? Which one do you think Spurgeon would choose as the gospel?

I also noticed this about Hyper-Calvinists, 'Belief in the five points is a prerequisite for true salvation'. They don't even believe all Calvinists are saved.

I don't mean this as any kind of antagonism, but it looks like the umbrella of Calvinism has false teachers within it.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I find Arminianism can be like a fruit and nut cake.

God uses all of us for His will and purpose.

Nothing wrong with a delicious fruit and nut cake. Yum.

 

[Marvin Knox]

God uses all of us for His will and purpose.

Nothing wrong with a delicious fruit and nut cake. Yum.

I love fruit cake.

I make at least on different version every year and age if for several months before giving it out to my relatives and friends.

They all eagerly await their allotted portion every Christmas.

It's a little harder for me to love "theological fruitcakes" though.

 

[Marvin Knox]

This definition of TD is the 'Total Evil' version. Total inability referring to hard determinism.

Here is a another version. I am quoting Calvinist Randy Alcorne's book 'hand in Hand' page 67.

The term total depravity never made sense to me, because it suggests "completely evil"....No one sins all the time. - even unregenerate people can make good choices. Can an unbelieving alcoholic stay sober? Absolutely. As recovery groups demonstrate, millions of unbelievers have learned to make choices contrary to their temptations. We're sinners, of course. But if we are all as depraved as could be - totally depraved - human society could not exist.
I eventually came to realise that what Calvinists, and some Arminians (including John Wesley), call "total depravity" really means "total inability" to work our way to Gods favour.

My point is different people have different interpretations. And not just of TD. Unless you all are debating the same interpretation, debate is never going to get anywhere.

I'd have to disagree that total inability refers necessarily to hard determinism. The necessity of election unto salvation of some with attendant irresistible grace - yes.

But the total inability of all unregenerate mankind to believe without special grace is not the hard determinism of sin and evil as defined by hyper-Calvinists IMO.

Here again - it depends on who is defining terms.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Count me in. I'm not mellow in personality, but my Calvinism is defined as "moderate". It's about the only thing I am moderate in.

This chart, which I'm sure at least some will find fault with, is helpful in distinguishing types, or degrees of Calvinism as well as Arminianism.

1. Hyper-Calvinism

Beliefs: God is the author of sin and man has no responsibility before God. The Gospel should only preached to the elect. i.e. duty faith. and anti-missionary Belief in the five points is a prerequisite for true salvation, also known as Neo-Gnostic Calvinism. Proponents: Joseph Hussey John Skepp and some English primitive Baptists.

2. Ultra High Calvinism

Beliefs: That the elect are in some sense eternally justified. A denial of: The Well– Meant Offer; Common Grace; and God having any love for the non-elect. Proponents: John Gill, some ministers in the Protestant Reformed Church of America

3. High Calvinism

Beliefs: That God in no sense desires to save the reprobate, Most deny the Well-Meant Offer. Supralapsarian viewing God’s decrees. All hold to limited atonement. Most believe in particular grace and see the atonement as sufficient only for the elect. Proponents: Theodore Beza, Gordon Clark, Arthur Pink

4. Moderate Calvinism

Beliefs: That God does in some sense desires to save the reprobate, Infralapsarian in viewing God’s decrees. Affirms Common Grace. Proponents: John Calvin (some argue that he was a High-Calvinist), John Murray, RL Dabney

5. Low Calvinism

Beliefs: That Christ died for all in a legal sense, so one can speak of Christ dying for the non-elect. That God has two distinct wills. Affirms the Well-Meant Offer and Common Grace, Proponents: Amyraldrians , RT Kendal

6. Lutheranism

Beliefs: That Calvinist over emphasize God Sovereignty over man’s responsibility. That Christ died for all in legal sense, that some are predestined on to life but none are predestined onto death. That the sacraments are means of grace regardless of one’s faith. Proponents: Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, Rod Rosenbladt

7. American Baptist

Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. Once a persons believes the gospel, he is eternally secure. Rejects Calvinism, some would even call it heretical. Proponents: Jerry Falwell, Adrian Rogers

8. Arminianism

Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is solely based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. A person can fall from the state of grace i.e. lose ones salvation, since it is our free will that chooses Christ at conversion. Proponents: Jacob Arminius, John Wesley some Methodists

copyright Rev Jonathan James Goundry

I would likely be best plugged into category 4 or 5 according to this list. If someone held a gun to my head and made me choose I'd probably go with number 5.

The reason for waffling is that, while infralapsarianism may well be the logical order of things - supralapsarianism may fit better with the overall purposes of God from eternity.

For what it's worth most hypercalvinists are supralapsarian. But, not all supralapsarians are hypercalvinist.

So I'd be happy if I could be "nuanced" in between the two. I'm a mellow fellow in some things.

Discussion among Calvinists of those two big words can get a little silly and pointless IMO.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I must say we are on page 63, so I'm unsure about the title of the thread because I was waiting for it to be explained. Oh well.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I must say we are on page 63, so I'm unsure about the title of the thread because I was waiting for it to be explained. Oh well.

I'd have to say that Calvinism in it's various guises has been explained pretty well in these 63 pages.

Maybe someone should try explaining the various guises of "non-Calvinism" for us in another thread.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I'd have to say that Calvinism in it's various guises has been explained pretty well in these 63 pages.

Maybe someone should try explaining the various guises of "non-Calvinism" for us in another thread.

I don't think non Calvinists are that worried about it. IMHO, most threads about Calvinist doctrine are started byCalvinists. I think we are more into spreading the gospel and prayer. I don't feel a need to defend my position, per se. Only that I disagree

Lots of people out there hurting. I would choose them