Highlights of Calvinism

[GoldenKingGaze]

Apart from TULIP, what are the highlights of Calvinism? What are the great quotes and chapters? I ask because I have a friend who likes parts of Calvinism, but doesn't believe in predestiny.

Calvinism has a hold on many fellows, one applied Jesus' sacred blood upon me, and I was at peace.

And there is Millard J Erickson author of Christian Theology, who holds to Sola Scriptura and disregards the Popes of old, so also the Nicene Creed. He does not interpret Peter's letters to mention Jesus' descent into Hell. He re-interprets them figuratively. Millard is a Calvinist.

What is Calvin's teaching on grace, what it is and if we receive it by faith...?

And does a baby have to be baptized in water to be saved in case of premature death?

 

[BobRyan]

Apart from TULIP, what are the highlights of Calvinism? What are the great quotes and chapters? I ask because I have a friend who likes parts of Calvinism, but doesn't believe in predestiny.

Calvinism has a hold on many fellows, one applied Jesus' sacred blood upon me, and I was at peace.

And there is Millard J Erickson author of Christian Theology, who holds to Sola Scriptura and disregards the Popes of old, so also the Nicene Creed. He does not interpret Peter's letters to mention Jesus' descent into Hell. He re-interprets them figuratively. Millard is a Calvinist.

What is Calvin's teaching on grace, what it is and if we receive it by faith...?

And does a baby have to be baptized in water to be saved in case of premature death?

Calvinism has some problem in the TULIP

But it does get a few things right.

T - all mankind is born with a sinful nature that of itself "does not seek after God" as we see in Rom 3:9-12
P - Perseverance of the saints is indeed a doctrine in the Bible where the saints are called to persevere "firm unto the end" and if they do not - they do not end up with salvation no matter how often they were on the right path and then failed to persevere in it.

Their "form" of L - Limited atonement is not correct - but it is correct to say that only in the case of the saints that go to heaven - can it be said that they benefited in full from the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

What they get wrong is spelled out in scripture in Lev 16 "Day of Atonement" where we find that it is NOT just the work of Christ as sin offering that is necessary for the full Bible scope of the term "Atonement". But also the work of Christ as High priest - which Heb 8:1-5 says He does for mankind in the sanctuary in heaven to this very day.

 

[John Mullally]

Apart from TULIP, what are the highlights of Calvinism? What are the great quotes and chapters? I ask because I have a friend who likes parts of Calvinism, but doesn't believe in predestiny.

Calvinism has a hold on many fellows, one applied Jesus' sacred blood upon me, and I was at peace.

And there is Millard J Erickson author of Christian Theology, who holds to Sola Scriptura and disregards the Popes of old, so also the Nicene Creed. He does not interpret Peter's letters to mention Jesus' descent into Hell. He re-interprets them figuratively. Millard is a Calvinist.

What is Calvin's teaching on grace, what it is and if we receive it by faith...?

And does a baby have to be baptized in water to be saved in case of premature death?

This is a link to the most questionable things Calvin stated: John Calvin Quotes – The Calvinism of John Calvin – Are Calvinists REALLY “Calvinists”?

 

[Hammster]

Apart from TULIP, what are the highlights of Calvinism? What are the great quotes and chapters? I ask because I have a friend who likes parts of Calvinism, but doesn't believe in predestiny.

Here’s over 900 resources from Puritans and Reformers. Any question would be answered here. 900+ Free eBooks Listed Alphabetically by Author | Monergism

Calvinism has a hold on many fellows, one applied Jesus' sacred blood upon me, and I was at peace.

Not sure what that means.

And there is Millard J Erickson author of Christian Theology, who holds to Sola Scriptura and disregards the Popes of old, so also the Nicene Creed. He does not interpret Peter's letters to mention Jesus' descent into Hell. He re-interprets them figuratively. Millard is a Calvinist.

Okay.

What is Calvin's teaching on grace, what it is and if we receive it by faith...?

That could be a whole thread in and of itself.

And does a baby have to be baptized in water to be saved in case of premature death?

No.

 

[St_Worm2]

Apart from TULIP, what are the highlights of Calvinism? What are the great quotes and chapters? I ask because I have a friend who likes parts of Calvinism, but doesn't believe in predestiny.

Calvinism has a hold on many fellows, one applied Jesus' sacred blood upon me, and I was at peace.

And there is Millard J Erickson author of Christian Theology, who holds to Sola Scriptura and disregards the Popes of old, so also the Nicene Creed. He does not interpret Peter's letters to mention Jesus' descent into Hell. He re-interprets them figuratively. Millard is a Calvinist.

What is Calvin's teaching on grace, what it is and if we receive it by faith...?

And does a baby have to be baptized in water to be saved in case of premature death?

Hello GoldenKingGaze, along with Doctrines of Grace/TULIP, Calvin also held to what is now referred to as the 5 Solas of the Reformation. They are,

1. Sola Fide (salvation is by faith alone)​

2. Sola Gratia (salvation is by grace alone)​

3. Sola Scriptura (meaning that Scripture alone is authoritative, which makes it our regula fidei/rule of faith/final authority in matters pertaining to faith/practice/morals)​

4. Solus Christus/Solo Christo (salvation is by Christ alone)​

5. Soli Deo Gloria (To the glory of God alone)​

Here is a short article about the 5 Solas that I think you'll enjoy reading, and it may help you understand what they are really all about as well

The Sole Soul of the Solas ​

​

It puzzles me deeply that so few are puzzled deeply by the paradox. We are so used to the befuddling language that we miss its befuddling nature. It ought to stop us in our tracks, arrest our attention, like those signs I see for Fifth Third Bank. Fifth Bank I could understand. Third Bank I could understand. I could understand them merging to become Fourth Bank. But Fifth Third Bank? What does that even mean?​

​

In like manner, how is that our spiritual ancestors, our theological heroes, when they set about to tell us the one thing, ended up telling us five things? If I had lived in a cave for the last five hundred years and someone wanted to get me up to speed on the Reformation, and what it is I should believe and they said, “There are five things. The first one is sola–“ I would have to say, “Stop right there. If there are five, how can even one be called sola?”​

​

It does, of course, in the end make perfect sense. The alones are not alone because they are talking, in a manner of speaking, on different axes. An infinite line is really infinite, but it doesn’t cover everything. An infinite plane is, in a manner of speaking, even more infinite that an infinite line, but it doesn’t cover everything. What sola Scriptura is seeking to keep out isn’t grace, or faith, or Christ or God’s glory. It’s trying to keep out tradition. Grace alone doesn’t exclude the Bible, or faith, or Christ or the glory of God.​

​

In a very real sense, though they operate on different axes, these five are one. The Bible alone is God’s full revelation of His glory, in manifesting His grace in Christ, which becomes ours through the gift of faith. God’s grace is uniquely revealed in His Word, which manifests the work of Christ which becomes our by faith, all redounding to His glory. The solas are precise and potent affirmations of this truth, that it’s all about God. They remind us not just how we might have peace with God, but that peace with God is not the full and final end of all things. They remind us that the story of the Bible isn’t simply how we who are in dire straits can make it to safety, and how nice God is to play such an important role in making that happen. Instead they remind us that He is the end, and we are the means. The story is about Him and His glory more than us and our comfort.​

​

Jesus makes much the same point in the Sermon on the Mount. He recognizes our weaknesses. We are self-centered, concerned with ourselves, and what we perceive our needs to be. So we worry about what we will eat and what we will wear. We fret about our provision and our status. What Jesus doesn’t tell us however, is, “Now, look, you have no need to worry about these things because you have someone on your side. Other people might need to worry but you don’t, because my Father in heaven is for you. You can pursue these things with confidence, knowing that you have the supreme advantage of having the supreme being on your side.”​

​

What He told us instead was surprising. He told us to set aside our petty concerns and to set our minds on, well, depending on how you look at it, one, or two things. He said, “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness.” Do we now have seven solas? Ought we to add the kingdom and His righteousness to the alones? By no means. These are all still together the one thing. There is an organic unity not only between the kingdom and the righteousness, but among these two and the five of the Reformation. We are not failing to pursue the kingdom of God when we are seeking after His righteousness. We are not failing to pursue His righteousness when we are seeking after His kingdom. We are pursuing one thing, one way, to honor and serve our Maker and Redeemer by affirming our dependence on Him and His preeminence in all things.​

​

The God we serve is one. As such He calls us to follow one path. His commands are never and can never be pitted against each other. His wisdom is never and can never be pitted against itself. His grace is never and can never be pitted against His character. When we find ourselves torn, confused, pulled in different directions it isn’t because we are faithfully following Him, but because we are not. It isn’t because we are faithfully heeding His voice, but because we are not.​

​

The two, His kingdom and His righteousness are one, as the five, the solas of the Reformation are one, as the Three, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One. And these three groups are one as well. For in the end, they are all about the beginning. From the beginning they have always been about the end. For our lives are and always will be bound up together in the Alpha and the Omega. ~Dr. R. C. Sproul Jr.​

​

~The Sole Soul of the Solas | RC Sproul Jr​

I've gotta go, but I hope to return soon with more

God bless you!!

--David

"We are justified by faith alone, but the faith the justifies is never alone" ~John Calvin​

.​

 

[St_Worm2]

Hello again @GoldenKingGaze, here's an interesting quote and HIGH praise from someone who you would never think of as a fanboy of Calvin (in this case, he writes concerning Calvin's Commentaries, and his Institutes of the Christian Religion).

“After the reading of Scripture, which I strenuously inculcate, and more than any other (as the whole Academy, yea the conscience of my colleagues will testify) I recommend that the Commentaries of Calvin be read, whom I extol in higher terms than Helmichius himself, as he owned to me, ever did. For I affirm that in the interpretation of the Scriptures Calvin is incomparable, and that his Commentaries are more to be valued than anything that is handed down to us in the Bibliotheca (Library) of the Fathers; so much so, that I concede to him a certain spirit of prophecy in which he stands distinguished above all others, above most, yea above all. His Institutes, so far as respects Commonplaces, I give out to be read after the Catechism, as a more extended explanation.” ~Jacobus Arminius​

You might also enjoy reading Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church, Volume 8, which is principally about The Swiss Reformation and Calvin. Some have claimed that Schaff is a Calvinist, but once you read Volume 8, you'll see that he is not. Nevertheless, he clearly has high regard for the Reformer (even though he clearly disagrees with much of Calvin's soteriology). So, I believe that Schaff is a balanced (rather than biased) source on Calvin's life/beliefs, and it is simply a GREAT read as well (especially for a history book).

Now I've really gotta go

--David

 

[atpollard]

Apart from TULIP, what are the highlights of Calvinism? What are the great quotes and chapters? I ask because I have a friend who likes parts of Calvinism, but doesn't believe in predestiny.

Calvinism has a hold on many fellows, one applied Jesus' sacred blood upon me, and I was at peace.

And there is Millard J Erickson author of Christian Theology, who holds to Sola Scriptura and disregards the Popes of old, so also the Nicene Creed. He does not interpret Peter's letters to mention Jesus' descent into Hell. He re-interprets them figuratively. Millard is a Calvinist.

What is Calvin's teaching on grace, what it is and if we receive it by faith...?

And does a baby have to be baptized in water to be saved in case of premature death?

Part of the issue is “Calvinism” is a term that is sloppily defined … it means different things to different people. It is never a PROPER TERM … there is no “First Church of John Calvin” (he founded no church) … there was never a seminary founded by John Calvin where his students spread his teachings. So “Calvinism is shorthand slang for two different things …

• TULIP … the Doctrines of Grace … a specific and monergistic soteriology (view of how God saves people).
• Reformed Theology … as taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith … as practiced by the Puritans and Dutch Reformed … a tradition carried on by modern Presbyterian Theologians.

As a Particular Baptist (a Christian that believes in TULIP, but not baptizing babies into Church Membership), I can affirm the FIRST definition of “Calvinist”, while rejecting much of Reformed Theology (like infant baptism and church hierarchies beyond the local assembly).

Better terms would be the DOCTRINES OF GRACE (for TULIP) or REFORMED THEOLOGY (for the whole WCF teaching).

PS. To reject “predestiny” is to reject the Biblical verses that specifically mention “it” [Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 1:5,11] … so it is some “interpretation” that one must accept or reject - predestination is a biblical fact.

 

[zoidar]

Indeed. So if the lump is marred in His hands (Jer 18), then even the master potter cannot continue with His plan, but while He is making the vessel of dishonor , intended for destruction, from the same lump (Jews, both Jer 18 And Rom 9), the opportunity is present to migrate from that lump to the new one.

Then it is determined (past tense). If it is determined prior to you determining it, then it was determined by someone besides you. Whether that is God or someone else, it still holds.

No, it means God knows what someone else determined, if He didn't determine it. If it was determined before you existed, then you didn't determine it. You couldn't have, since you didn't exist.

All I can say is God is not like a man who knows things in a linear fashion. God knows things beyond time. It's known in the eternal. That is my view how God knows the future. He just knows what you will determine. Your future choice is not limited to what God knew, what God knew is limited to your future choice.

You might ask if God knows you will have coffee, can you have tea? That's the wrong question. The question is if you choose to have tea instead of coffee, can God have known it?

You don't have to buy it. Just sharing my view.

I don't understand how knowing my child will become a truck driver means that I will become a truck driver.

I don't necessarily believe He determined my future if He knows my future. But as I stated above, if He knows it m before I existed, then I didn't determine it. So that leaves either God or someone else.

By the way, when I say "my future", I'm talking mostly about all the little things, like what I'll have for breakfast tomorrow. I do that because such is trivial in God's eyes, but it has to be considered if God knows EVERYTHING about my future.

And if there is even a single thing God does not know about my future, then the whole paradigm of God knowing every future act, thought, or word of everybody that is was or will be completely breaks down

 

[Gary K]

Apart from TULIP, what are the highlights of Calvinism? What are the great quotes and chapters? I ask because I have a friend who likes parts of Calvinism, but doesn't believe in predestiny.

Calvinism has a hold on many fellows, one applied Jesus' sacred blood upon me, and I was at peace.

And there is Millard J Erickson author of Christian Theology, who holds to Sola Scriptura and disregards the Popes of old, so also the Nicene Creed. He does not interpret Peter's letters to mention Jesus' descent into Hell. He re-interprets them figuratively. Millard is a Calvinist.

What is Calvin's teaching on grace, what it is and if we receive it by faith...?

And does a baby have to be baptized in water to be saved in case of premature death?
What Calvin actually taught is far different than most modern Calvinist's think he did. He taught that righteousness by faith means that we are empowered to keep the law of God.

The following is an excerpt from his book Commentary on Galatians and Ephesians in which he comments on Galatians 5: 22-26.

22. But the fruit 93 of the Spirit. In the former part of the description he condemned
the whole nature of man as producing nothing but evil and worthless fruits. He now informs
us that all virtues, all proper and well regulated affections, proceed from the Spirit, that is,
from the grace of God, and the renewed nature which we derive from Christ. As if he had
said, “Nothing but what is evil comes from man; nothing good comes but from the Holy
Spirit.” There have often appeared in unrenewed men remarkable instances of gentleness,
integrity, temperance, and generosity; but it is certain that all were but specious disguises.
Curius and Fabrieius were distinguished for courage, Cato for temperance, Scipio for
kindness and generosity, Fabius for patience; but it was only in the sight of men, and as
members of civil society, that they were so distinguished. In the sight of God nothing is pure
but what proceeds from the fountain of all purity.
Joy does not here, I think, denote that “joy in the Holy Ghost” (Romans 14:17,) of which
he speaks elsewhere, but that cheerful behavior towards our fellow-men which is the opposite
of moroseness. Faith means truth, and is contrasted with cunning, deceit, and falsehood,
as peace is with quarrels and contentions. Long-suffering is gentleness of mind, which disposes
us to take everything in good part, and not to be easily offended. The other terms require
no explanation, for the dispositions of the mind must be learned from the outward conduct.
93 “In the service of sin the toil is so great that, in comparison thereof, the benefit is as nothing; in the service
of God the benefit is so great that, in comparison thereof, the labour is as nothing. Where the flesh rules all, the
‘work’ exceeds the ‘fruit;’ and therefore, without even mentioning the ‘work,’ it is called the ‘fruit’ of the Spirit.
(See Ephesians 5:9, 11.)” — Bishop Sanderson.
137
Galatians 5:22-26
But if spiritual men are known by their works, what judgment, it will be asked, shall we
form of wicked men and idolaters, who exhibited an illustrious resemblance of all the virtues?
for it is evident from their works that they were spiritual. I reply, as all the works of the flesh
do not appear openly in a carnal man, but his carnaltry is discovered by one or another vice,
so a single virtue will not entitle us to conclude that a man is spiritual. Sometimes it will be
made evident, by other vices, that sin reigns in him; and this observation may be easily applied
to all the cases which I have enumerated.
23. Against such there is no law. Some understand these words as meaning simply that
the law is not directed against good works, “from evil manners have sprung good laws.” But
Paul’s real meaning is deeper and less obvious; namely, that, where the Spirit reigns, the law
has no longer any dominion. By moulding our hearts to his own righteousness, the Lord
delivers us from the severity of the law, so that our intercourse with himself is not regulated
by its covenant, nor our consciences bound by its sentence of condemnation. Yet the law
continues to teach and exhort, and thus performs its own office; but our subjection to it is
withdrawn by the Spirit of adoption. He thus ridicules the false apostles, who, while they
enforced subjection to the law, were not less eager to release themselves from its yoke. The
only way, he tells us, in which this is accomplished, is, when the Spirit of God obtains
dominion, from which we are led to conclude that they had no proper regard to spiritual
righteousness.

 

[Gary K]

Apart from TULIP, what are the highlights of Calvinism? What are the great quotes and chapters? I ask because I have a friend who likes parts of Calvinism, but doesn't believe in predestiny.

Calvinism has a hold on many fellows, one applied Jesus' sacred blood upon me, and I was at peace.

And there is Millard J Erickson author of Christian Theology, who holds to Sola Scriptura and disregards the Popes of old, so also the Nicene Creed. He does not interpret Peter's letters to mention Jesus' descent into Hell. He re-interprets them figuratively. Millard is a Calvinist.

What is Calvin's teaching on grace, what it is and if we receive it by faith...?

And does a baby have to be baptized in water to be saved in case of premature death?

Calvin taught a much different understanding of scripture than most modern Calvinists think he did.

22. But the fruit 93 of the Spirit. In the former part of the description he condemned
the whole nature of man as producing nothing but evil and worthless fruits. He now informs
us that all virtues, all proper and well regulated affections, proceed from the Spirit, that is,
from the grace of God, and the renewed nature which we derive from Christ. As if he had
said, “Nothing but what is evil comes from man; nothing good comes but from the Holy
Spirit.” There have often appeared in unrenewed men remarkable instances of gentleness,
integrity, temperance, and generosity; but it is certain that all were but specious disguises.
Curius and Fabrieius were distinguished for courage, Cato for temperance, Scipio for
kindness and generosity, Fabius for patience; but it was only in the sight of men, and as
members of civil society, that they were so distinguished. In the sight of God nothing is pure
but what proceeds from the fountain of all purity.
Joy does not here, I think, denote that “joy in the Holy Ghost” (Romans 14:17,) of which
he speaks elsewhere, but that cheerful behavior towards our fellow-men which is the opposite
of moroseness. Faith means truth, and is contrasted with cunning, deceit, and falsehood,
as peace is with quarrels and contentions. Long-suffering is gentleness of mind, which disposes
us to take everything in good part, and not to be easily offended. The other terms require
no explanation, for the dispositions of the mind must be learned from the outward conduct.
93 “In the service of sin the toil is so great that, in comparison thereof, the benefit is as nothing; in the service
of God the benefit is so great that, in comparison thereof, the labour is as nothing. Where the flesh rules all, the
‘work’ exceeds the ‘fruit;’ and therefore, without even mentioning the ‘work,’ it is called the ‘fruit’ of the Spirit.
(See Ephesians 5:9, 11.)” — Bishop Sanderson.
137
Galatians 5:22-26
But if spiritual men are known by their works, what judgment, it will be asked, shall we
form of wicked men and idolaters, who exhibited an illustrious resemblance of all the virtues?
for it is evident from their works that they were spiritual. I reply, as all the works of the flesh
do not appear openly in a carnal man, but his carnaltry is discovered by one or another vice,
so a single virtue will not entitle us to conclude that a man is spiritual. Sometimes it will be
made evident, by other vices, that sin reigns in him; and this observation may be easily applied
to all the cases which I have enumerated.
23. Against such there is no law. Some understand these words as meaning simply that
the law is not directed against good works, “from evil manners have sprung good laws.” But
Paul’s real meaning is deeper and less obvious; namely, that, where the Spirit reigns, the law
has no longer any dominion. By moulding our hearts to his own righteousness, the Lord
delivers us from the severity of the law, so that our intercourse with himself is not regulated
by its covenant, nor our consciences bound by its sentence of condemnation. Yet the law
continues to teach and exhort, and thus performs its own office; but our subjection to it is
withdrawn by the Spirit of adoption. He thus ridicules the false apostles, who, while they
enforced subjection to the law, were not less eager to release themselves from its yoke. The
only way, he tells us, in which this is accomplished, is, when the Spirit of God obtains
dominion, from which we are led to conclude that they had no proper regard to spiritual
righteousness.

 

[PloverWing]

And there is Millard J Erickson author of Christian Theology, who holds to Sola Scriptura and disregards the Popes of old, so also the Nicene Creed.

And there is Millard J Erickson author of Christian Theology, who holds to Sola Scriptura and disregards the Popes of old, so also the Nicene Creed.

This doesn't sound right to me; I don't think Erickson denies the Nicene Creed. Can you elaborate on this? Granted, he's Protestant, but most Protestant theologians affirm the Nicene Creed.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

This doesn't sound right to me; I don't think Erickson denies the Nicene Creed. Can you elaborate on this? Granted, he's Protestant, but most Protestant theologians affirm the Nicene Creed.

Augustine of Hippo came to have an allegorical interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18-21, so the lower parts of the Earth to him meant Galilee...

The Nicene Creed has it that Jesus descended to Hell. In keeping with 1 Peter 3:18-21. Erickson is a Calvinist who follows Augustine. He does not believe the ancient Popes. To him, they are not authoritative. So reading his book, Christian Theology, looking at Jesus death and resurrection he does not believe Jesus descended to Hell and the scriptures about it to him are not to be taken literally. He does not mention Jonah chapter 2.

So the parts of the Nicene Creed about Jesus descending to Hell, he discounts.

 

[PloverWing]

Augustine of Hippo came to have an allegorical interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18-21, so the lower parts of the Earth to him meant Galilee...

The Nicene Creed has it that Jesus descended to Hell. In keeping with 1 Peter 3:18-21. Erickson is a Calvinist who follows Augustine. He does not believe the ancient Popes. To him, they are not authoritative. So reading his book, Christian Theology, looking at Jesus death and resurrection he does not believe Jesus descended to Hell and the scriptures about it to him are not to be taken literally. He does not mention Jonah chapter 2.

So the parts of the Nicene Creed about Jesus descending to Hell, he discounts.

Thanks for the clarification.

It sounds like you're thinking of the Apostles' Creed. The statement "He descended into hell" appears in the Apostles' Creed but not the Nicene Creed. (Note that I've also seen this statement translated as "He descended to the dead", which suggests a slightly different possible meaning, namely, that Jesus was genuinely dead and was in the state that dead people are in.)

On the broader question: Calvin didn't see the popes and other Christian theologians as authoritative in the sense of infallible, but he was definitely well-informed about early Christian theology and incorporated many of their ideas into his own. "He does not believe the ancient Popes." seems too strong a statement to me.

I know very little about Erickson; I'd have to read his book to evaluate what he says.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Thanks for the clarification.

It sounds like you're thinking of the Apostles' Creed. The statement "He descended into hell" appears in the Apostles' Creed but not the Nicene Creed. (Note that I've also seen this statement translated as "He descended to the dead", which suggests a slightly different possible meaning, namely, that Jesus was genuinely dead and was in the state that dead people are in.)

On the broader question: Calvin didn't see the popes and other Christian theologians as authoritative in the sense of infallible, but he was definitely well-informed about early Christian theology and incorporated many of their ideas into his own. "He does not believe the ancient Popes." seems too strong a statement to me.

I know very little about Erickson; I'd have to read his book to evaluate what he says.

Thanks for pointing out the difference between the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds.

The Athanasian Creed also mentions Jesus descended into Hell.

 

[The Liturgist]

For me, the highlight of the Calvinist movement is the beautiful worship and liturgy developed in different Calvinist denominations, especially those of the Reformed Catholic, Scoto-Catholic and Mercersburg Theology movements.

I also love the skilled preaching, such as that of Dr. James Kennedy. After the repose of Pope John Paul II, I think Dr. James Kennedy became the foremost Western moral theologian, until his heart attack and repose in 2007, at which time the torch passed, so to speak, to Dr. Albert Mohler, a Calvinist Baptist. I will not comment on this thread on who the foremost moral theologian of Eastern
Christianity is as it would be offtopic, and it would also be a 50 page essay.

Finally, it is my experience that Presbyterians in particular are extremely practical and efficient and do a brilliant job with charitable work and getting things done. I reject Maxwell’s theory of a Calvinist Work Ethic, but I do believe that Presbyterians and other Reformed Christians excel at organizing charitable and educational enterprises.

 

[The Liturgist]

It is lovely by the way to see a thread praising a tradition rather than demeaning it.

 

[JSRG]

Calvinism has some problem in the TULIP

But it does get a few things right.

T - all mankind is born with a sinful nature that of itself "does not seek after God" as we see in Rom 3:9-12
P - Perseverance of the saints is indeed a doctrine in the Bible where the saints are called to persevere "firm unto the end" and if they do not - they do not end up with salvation no matter how often they were on the right path and then failed to persevere in it.

Their "form" of L - Limited atonement is not correct - but it is correct to say that only in the case of the saints that go to heaven - can it be said that they benefited in full from the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

What they get wrong is spelled out in scripture in Lev 16 "Day of Atonement" where we find that it is NOT just the work of Christ as sin offering that is necessary for the full Bible scope of the term "Atonement". But also the work of Christ as High priest - which Heb 8:1-5 says He does for mankind in the sanctuary in heaven to this very day.

Your description of Perseverance of the Saints does not seem to square with what Calvinists believe--or, at least, how I understand their belief.

As far as I understand it--and any actual Calvinist/Reformed is free to correct me--Perseverance of the Saints is not merely a command that people should persevere to the end, but rather a guarantee that all true Christians (the "saints" in the name) will persevere to the end. Thus, Perseverance of the Saints. The doctrine, also known as "once saved always saved" (which perhaps describes it more clearly), says that anyone who becomes saved as a true Christian will be guaranteed to never lose their salvation and will persevere to the end of their life as such. If any Christian should fall away from the faith later in life, it simply means that, despite external appearances, they were not a true Christian.

 

[BobRyan]

Your description of Perseverance of the Saints does not seem to square with what Calvinists believe--or, at least, how I understand their belief.

As far as I understand it--and any actual Calvinist/Reformed is free to correct me--Perseverance of the Saints is not merely a command that people should persevere to the end, but rather a guarantee that all true Christians (the "saints" in the name) will persevere to the end. Thus, Perseverance of the Saints. The doctrine, also known as "once saved always saved" (which perhaps describes it more clearly), says that anyone who becomes saved as a true Christian will be guaranteed to never lose their salvation and will persevere to the end of their life as such.

If any Christian should fall away from the faith later in life, it simply means that, despite external appearances, they were not a true Christian.

And the problem with that is that one cannot know if they are saved today-- without first knowing that 40 years from today on their last day on Earth - they will still have persevered. Because if they do not - then no matter how confident they are today that they are indeed saved, 40 years later they and all their friends will affirm that in fact they never were saved. They retro-delete all of today's assurance if 40 years from today it turns out that they fail to persevere.

By contrast to the Arminian POV where one can know for certain they are saved today EVEN THOUGH they cannot see the future and cannot know that 40 years from today they will continue to persevere. The Bible urges us to persevere - as an action on our part. It does not urge God to cause us to persevere as if He were the source of the problem when we don't persevere.

 

[St_Worm2]

Your description of Perseverance of the Saints does not seem to square with what Calvinists believe--or, at least, how I understand their belief.

Hello JSRG, here's what we Calvinists believe about the 5th "petal" of TULIP.

XVII. Of the Perseverance of the Saints​

1. They, whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved. (Phil. 1:6, 2 Pet. 1:10, 1 John 3:9, 1 Pet. 1:5,9)​

​

2. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; (2 Tim. 2:18–19, Jer. 31:3) upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, (Heb. 10:10, 14, Heb. 13:20–21, Heb. 9:12–15, Rom. 8:33–39, John 17:11, 24, Luke 22:32, Heb. 7:25) the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them, (John 14:16–17, 1 John 2:27, 1 John 3:9) and the nature of the covenant of grace: (Jer. 32:40) from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof. (John 10:28, 2 Thess. 3:3, 1 John 2:19)​

​

3. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; (Matt. 26:70, 72, 74) and, for a time, continue therein: (Ps. 51 title, Ps. 51:1) whereby they incur God’s displeasure, (Isa. 64:5, 7, 9, 2 Sam. 11:27) and grieve His Holy Spirit, (Eph. 4:30) come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, (Ps. 51:8, 10, 12, Rev. 2:4, Cant. 5:2–4, 6) have their hearts hardened, (Isa. 63:17, Mark 6:52, Mark 16:14) and their consciences wounded; (Ps. 32:3–4, Ps. 51:8) hurt and scandalize others, (2 Sam. 12:14) and bring temporal judgments upon themselves. (Ps. 89:31–32, 1 Cor. 11:32).​

​

~Westminster Confession of Faith​

As far as I understand it--and any actual Calvinist/Reformed is free to correct me--Perseverance of the Saints is not merely a command that people should persevere to the end, but rather a guarantee that all true Christians (the "saints" in the name) will persevere to the end.

The most assured way that we have of knowing (on this side of the grave) that someone has truly come to saving faith is whether they have persevered in the faith (albeit imperfectly) or not, especially at the end of their life. The guarantee that you speak of we consider more of a promise from God that He will both sanctify us and lose none of us along the way, by "preserving" us in the faith unto Glory (so "Preservation of the Saints" might actually be a better way of describing what we mean when we say "Perseverance of the Saints" .. e.g. Philippians 1:6, 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24; Hebrews 7:25; Jude 24-25).

Thus, Perseverance of the Saints. The doctrine, also known as "once saved always saved" (which perhaps describes it more clearly).....

Actually, most Calvinists tend to shy away from that particular terminology (OSAS, that is), because it is often taken to mean that once someone is saved, they are given free license to sin all the more (which would be the antithesis of persevering, as well of that which the Lord Jesus principally came here to do, to save us from our sins, both from the penalty of sin in the age to come, and from the power that sin holds over us in this life).

If any Christian should fall away from the faith later in life, it simply means that, despite external appearances, they were not a true Christian.

That is also something that we believe/teach .. e.g. 1 John 2:19. The folks here (Matthew 7:22-23) are a good example of those who claimed/believed that they became "Christians" during their lives here, but the Lord tells them plainly that they never did.

Finally, I should probably point out that the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints isn't something that we came up with on our own, rather, we teach it because the Bible does!

God bless you!!

--David