How many point Calvinist?

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

Make that three. I'm also a zero pointer. Instead, I am a "Rosesian", a person who believes in "Roses Theology" --

Redeemed on condition of faith ("For by [God's] grace you have been saved through [upon condition of your own] faith, and that [salvation] not of yourselves; it [the being saved] is the gift of God, not of works..." Eph 2:8)

Open to all ("God our Savior... desires all men to be saved... for... the man Christ Jesus... gave himself as a ransom for all" 1 Tim 2:4-6, for "Jesus Christ... himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world" 1 John 2:1-2)

Separated by sin ("Your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God" Isaiah 59:2)

Elect to good works ("He chose us in him... that we should be holy and blameless before him... For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" Eph 1:4, 2:10, "that you may prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you [should] appear as lights in the world" Phil 2:15)

Sealed by the Spirit ("In him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation, having also believed, you were sealed in him with the Holy Spirit of promise" Eph 1:13, so that "neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" Rom 8:38-39)


Jeffrey A

That's me!!!

 

[hindsey]

Ok, we're up to 5 that have said that they are 0-point Calvinist, but to be accurate, the last three that have agreed with "ROSES," Is not the Sealed by the Spirit the same as Perserverance of the Saints? If so, then you three should vote for just the "P." Let me know.

 

[Van]

I voted only for P, and I agree with the Roses. With the way the poll is constructed I am not sure that it is safe to draw too many conclusions.

 

[ZiSunka]

I agree with Perserverance of the Saints. I believe that if you are saved, you will perservere in the faith to the end. I think Jesus talked about this subject in Matthew in the parable of the seeds:

Matthew 13:3 Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.


I think the people who don't perservere are the ones who are like the seeds on the shallow soil or among the thorns. They start off in the Christian life, but because of hardships or whatever, they let that life wither and die.

 

[SumTinWong]

I am a zero pointer here...

 

[hindsey]

I voted only for P, and I agree with the Roses. With the way the poll is constructed I am not sure that it is safe to draw too many conclusions.

But, you do agree with P, right? Other than adding in an option for 0-points, what would have been better?

 

[Jeffrey A]

Ok, we're up to 5 that have said that they are 0-point Calvinist, but to be accurate, the last three that have agreed with "ROSES," Is not the Sealed by the Spirit the same as Perserverance of the Saints? If so, then you three should vote for just the "P." Let me know.

The problem with Calvinism's "Perseverance of the Saints" is not simply its connotation that one cannot lose one's salvation, but in its more prominent described connotation that an elect person CANNOT "fall away" from the faith, but will "persevere" in it, by growing spiritually (some faster than others, granted), and by showing the fruit of the Spirit and doing good works (some more than others), and by not willfully returning to a life of sin.

While "Sealed by the Spirit" certainly is a "once saved always saved" kind of position, the Calvinist concept of "persevering" is contrasted by the Roses implication that 'no matter what', a person cannot 'fall OUT of the faith' so as to 'lose' salvation, because they have been "sealed" to it. The 'P' of the TULIP implies a person who "falls away from the faith" was merely a pretender, never saved in the first place, and therefore not one of the Elect to begin with. The fact that they did NOT "persevere" in the faith is the very proof of that. In contrast, the 'S' of ROSES implies that a person who is saved, no matter what happens, cannot lose their salvation.

The natural answer to the question "well then, what happens to a saved person who does indeed 'fall away from the faith' or keeps on 'willfully sinning'?" is answered by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 and 3:8-17 and 11:28-32, and by the writer of Hebrews at Heb 10:26-31 and 12:4-11, and by James at Js 2:12-14, adequately summed up by 1 Peter 4:17 -- "For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?"

So, you see, even though the P of Calvinism and the final S of Rosesianism both suggest the 'security' of the believer in salvation, they are quite different in their approach, argument and consequence. A vote for P is not a vote for S, and vice versa.

Jeffrey A

 

[hindsey]

Thanks, Jeffrey, very well explained.

 

[Jeffrey A]

Yeah I'd say that describes me pretty perfectly. Thought I might append elect to good works to "elect to good works and blessings in the heavenly places".. besides that it's a-ok in my books

Obviously the five points of Roses Theology (actually more specifically 'soteriology' -- the study of the workings of specifically 'salvation' itself) don't adequately cover all the facets of our new position as children in the kingdom. But you make a very good point, one I would like to explore.

Calvinists tend to use "election" and "predestination" interchangeably, but I think they are capable of distinction, and your suggestion that we need to encompass our "blessings in heavenly places" within Roses Theology is well taken, especially since it is directly linked in Scripture to the use of the word "predestination" that Calvinists claim as their own.

Three places this word is used in the NT to refer to a blessing that comes to believers, beyond simple salvation from the condemnation of death and hell, which is no small blessing in and of itself:

Romans 8:29 -- "For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren" (a reference to the resurrection, see Col 1:18 and 1 Cor 15:20-24,50-53)

Ephesians 1:5 -- "He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to himself, according to the kind intention of his will"

Ephesians 1:11 -- "(In him) also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined (to it) according to his purpose who works all things after the counsel of his will".

So just as all who are 'in' Christ had been 'elect' -- chosen -- before the foundation of the world to "be holy and blameless" and to do "good works", all who are in Christ, whoever they are, so also all who are in Christ, whoever they are, had been predestined before the world began to receive the additional blessings beyond simple salvation from death and hell of these three great promises:

1. To be conformed to the image of the risen Son at the resurrection, to an imperishable spiritual body

2. To be adopted as sons of God the Father, to become the very members of the household through our marriage relationship with the Son

3. To be inheriting a portion of the Son's inheritance

All who are in Christ have been predestined to receive these three tremendous blessings, beyond the already tremendous gift of salvation from the condemnation of sin and death, justification, and eternal life.

Jeffrey A

 

[Jeffrey A]

Thanks, Jeffrey, very well explained.

I wonder if it might be helpful if we took a quick peek at the historic positions of our member groups -- Anabaptists (Mennonites/Brethren), Baptists, and Quakers -- to see where they historically stood on the Calvinist/Arminian debate.

Here's my understanding: Dutch Mennonites historically sided with the Dutchman Jacob Herrman (Jacobus Arminius in Latin)'s position as more fully defined by his followers after his death, the position we now call 'Arminianism.' Brethren came out of German Lutheran Pietism, and Lutherans by that time had rejected Calvinism (returning to their Catholic position), and so were also 'Arminian' in position (although they don't use that label). That influence carried over to the Brethren (we also don't accept the Arminian label). Baptists, however, even though initially influenced by the Dutch Mennonites and Moravian Brethren through John Smith during his exile, went through a very distinct period of controversy over this issue early in their history, and divided into General Baptists (rejecting Calvinism) and Particular Baptists (holding to Calvinism). This schism still exists today.

As for American Baptists, typically Southern Baptists reject Calvinism, while also rejecting the aspect of Arminianism that suggests you can lose your salvation, but there is a movement within it, called the "Founders" Movement, to try and sway congregations back to Particular Baptist calvinism. Other Baptist groups would need to be traced back to either their General or their Particular forefathers.

Quakers generally simply steer clear of the whole debate, as silence is next to Godliness in their practice. Moravian Brethren would be Lutheran in their position, since they were re-constituted under the protection of a Lutheran, Count Zinzendorf.

So, for all the varying possible positions on the matter among all our member groups, this thread has been surprisingly mild and civil. Hooray! Praise God!

Jeffrey A
(Grace Brethren)

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, Jeffery A

Redeemed on condition of faith ("For by [God's] grace you have been saved through [upon condition of your own] faith, and that [salvation] not of yourselves; it [the being saved] is the gift of God, not of works..." Eph 2:8)


I will contend here that the words in bold you have added to the text. Here is the Greek by the use of grammer or the idea of dynamic translation where are these word or nessary additions?


Eph 2:8 th gar xariti este seswsmenoi dia tsbthv pistewv kai touto ouk ec umwn qeou to dwron

I will add for your edification 2 literal translations

ALT:
Eph 2:8 For by grace you* have been saved, through faith, and this [is] not from you*; [it is] the gift of God,


YLT:
Eph 2:8 for by grace ye are having been saved, through faith, and this not of you--of God the gift,



Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Jeffrey A]

Redeemed on condition of faith ("For by [God's] grace you have been saved through [upon condition of your own] faith, and that [salvation] not of yourselves; it [the being saved] is the gift of God, not of works..." Eph 2:8)


I will contend here that the words in bold you have added to the text.

Certainly. That is why I used brackets.

Here is the Greek; by the use of grammar or the idea of dynamic translation where are these words, or necessary additions?

I included them to show how a Rosesian reads -- i.e., understands -- that verse.

I will add for your edification 2 literal translations

Eph 2:8For by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this [is] not from you; [it is] the gift of God,

I'm not sure I understand what those words in brackets mean there... does that mean those words, [is] and [it is] have been 'added' by someone, either you or the translator?

Eph 2:8 for by grace ye are having been saved, through faith, and this not of you--of God the gift,

The question still remains, even in these two 'transliterated' (more literally word for word) English versions, 'what' is the gift? The 'being saved', or the 'faith'? The answer is not arrived at by the grammar or construction of the sentence, obviously, since that remains in question, but by an understanding of both "salvation" and "faith", as well as how the "gift" relates to them.

So we turn to Paul in Romans, where he describes that "the gospel... is the power of God for salvation to every one who believes..." Rm 1:16, and further, that "to the one who... believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness..." Rom 4:5.

OTOH, we read that we are "justified as a gift by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" Rom 3:24, for "if... we were reconciled to God through the death of his son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by his life... For if by the transgression of the one (Adam), much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ" Rom 5:10,17, "for the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" Rom 8:23.

So the "gift" is being "justified", being declared "righteous", being "saved", being "reconciled", receiving "eternal life"... but the "faith" is our own, for God is "the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" Rom 3:26, for "Abraham believed God, and it" -- Abraham's faith -- "was reckoned to him as righteousness" Rom 4:3.

Jeffrey A

 

[BBAS 64]

Certainly. That is why I used brackets.



I included them to show how a Rosesian reads -- i.e., understands -- that verse.



I'm not sure I understand what those words in brackets mean there... does that mean those words, [is] and [it is] have been 'added' by someone, either you or the translator?

Good Day, Jeffery A

Added for better understanding by the ALT translators.

The question still remains, even in these two 'transliterated' (more literally word for word) English versions, 'what' is the gift? The 'being saved', or the 'faith'? The answer is not arrived at by the grammar or construction of the sentence, obviously, since that remains in question, but by an understanding of both "salvation" and "faith", as well as how the "gift" relates to them.

I say "Faith" but, I do understand that some question remains.

As William Hendrikson rightly observed: That offered by A. T. Robertson. Commenting on this passage in his Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. IV, p. 525, he states, Grace is God's part, faith ours.He adds that since in the original the demonstrative this (and this not of yourselves) is neuter and does not correspond with the gender of the word faith, which is feminine.It does not refer to the latter but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part. Even more clearly in Gram. N.T., p. 704, he states categoricallyIn Eph. 2:8 . . . there is no reference to dia; pivstew" [through faith] in tou'to [this], but rather to the idea of salvation in the clause before.Without any hesitancy I answer, Robertson, to whom the entire world of New Testament scholarship is heavily indebted, does not express himself felicitously in this instance. This is true first because in a context in which the apostle places such tremendous stress on the fact that from start to finish man owes his salvation to God, to him alone, it would have been very strange, indeed, for him to say, Grace is God's part, faith ours. True though it be that both the responsibility of believing and also its activity are ours, for God does not believe for us, nevertheless, in the present context (verses 5-10) one rather expects emphasis on the fact that both in its initiation and in its continuation faith is entirely dependent on God, and so is our complete salvation.Also, Robertson, a grammarian famous in his field, knew that in the original the demonstrative (this), though neuter, by no means always corresponds in gender with its antecedent.That he knew this is shown by the fact that on the indicated page of his Grammar (p.704) he points out that in general the demonstrative agrees with its substantive in gender and number.When he says in general, he must mean, not always but most of the time.Hence, he should have considered more seriously the possibility that, in view of the context, the exception to the rule, an exception by no means rare, applies here.He should have made allowance for it. Finally, he should have justified the departure from the rule that unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise the antecedent should be looked for in the immediate vicinity of the pronoun or adjective that refers to it.


From John Gill:
"In this verse, to what does the word "that" refer to? Adam Clarke, Wesley & company say that it is neuter plural and "Faith" is feminine hence it cannot refer to faith, (Such an admission would destroy their theological system.) However "Grace" is also feminine as is "Salvation".''

His reply was:

"Here you ask a wonderful theological/exegetical question to which I can only give an opinion, and not a definitive answer. The problem is that there is NO precise referent. Grace is feminine. Faith is feminine. And even Salvation (as a noun) is feminine. Yet it must be one of these three at least, and maybe more than one, or all three in conjunction. Since all three come from God and not from man, the latter might seem the more likely. However, it is a tautology to say salvation and grace are "nor of yourselves," and in that case it certainly looks more like the passage is really pointing out that man cannot even take credit for his own act of faith, but that faith was itself created by God and implanted in us that we might believe (i.e. the normal Calvinistic position). In which regard the whole theological issue of "regeneration preceding faith" comes into play. So, that is basically my opinion, though others obviously disagree strenuously, but from an exegetical standpoint, the other positions have to explain away the matter of the tautology.''

So we turn to Paul in Romans, where he describes that "the gospel... is the power of God for salvation to every one who believes..." Rm 1:16, and further, that "to the one who... believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness..." Rom 4:5.OTOH, we read that we are "justified as a gift by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" Rom 3:24, for "if... we were reconciled to God through the death of his son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by his life... For if by the transgression of the one (Adam), much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ" Rom 5:10,17, "for the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" Rom 8:23.

So the "gift" is being "justified", being declared "righteous", being "saved", being "reconciled", receiving "eternal life"... but the "faith" is our own, for God is "the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" Rom 3:26, for "Abraham believed God, and it" -- Abraham's faith -- "was reckoned to him as righteousness" Rom 4:3.

Jeffrey A

We do not have to turn anywhere, Eph 2:8 does in no way says the faith is our own in the context nor the Grammer weather you use a plural of a singular to define the gift.

If you would like to Discuss other passages then open an other thread. For the purposes of this thread and you assertion of your "R" based on the faith" is our own the verse you sited does not bare that out.

Belief:

Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Our belief is God's work not our own work, if God by his free choice does not do His work on you will never believe on the one who God has sent.

I will take a look at the "O" in the morning as time premits, but a Rose with out an "R" is no longer a rose.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[BT]

Is not being "Sealed by the Spirit" the same as Perserverance of the Saints? Basically they both say that once you're TRULY saved you can never be lost-again. Right?

Sort of. The "P" in Tulip is usually regarded as OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved) doctrine which is something that I would agree with, and would agree is clearly taught in the Bible. I still would reject the P in TULIP because it is dependant on the other points. Like if you are totally depraved, then you must be elected (unconditionally), and the atonement must only be for you (or at least effectual only towards "your kind"), and therefore when you are called you must come, and if all of this is done by God then He will keep what he called (P). There is so much of calvinism to be thrown to the dogs that I reject even the "P" as it is included in the system. But I do understand from Scripture that once I have repented, believed in my heart, and confessed with my mouth, that I am sealed (OSAS) unto the day of redemption.

So I reject the "P"

 

[Jeffrey A]

As to the question, "is the gift of God our 'faith', or 'salvation'"...

I say "Faith"

And so that is what it really comes down to. You say God gives us even our "faith", as well as our "salvation", and I say our faith is our faith, the one condition upon which God gives us the free gift of justification, salvation, righteousness, reconciliation, and eternal life.

Just believe. Apart from works. Just believe. "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" And Paul answered, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved..."

It is like a restaurant offering free meals for a day. The only condition is that a person must come through the door, sit down, and be hungry. If a person never comes, never sits, and isn't even hungry, they get no free food. But it is still free food even if a Calvinist comes in and says, "it is NOT free, because I had to WORK for it -- I had to come and sit down! That's work!" In man's restaurant, they would probably be thrown out. But in God's restaurant, they still get their free food anyway, praise his great mercy!

As John 6:27-29 describes, Jesus said, "Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man shall give to you..." And they replied, "What shall we do, that we may work (these) works of God?" And Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."

Here is the "work of God" you can "do" to get the free "food": come in, sit down, and eat it. That's all. It's free. Come in, sit down, and eat it. It's free.

No wrangling, no arguing, no hassles, no discord. Just a statement of the case. State yours further, if you wish.

Peace.

Jeffrey A

 

[BT]

I say "Faith" but, I do understand that some question remains.

Of course you do dear one. But you're wrong.

 

[2Timothy2]

I'm about a 2.5

T - 80-90%
U - 50-60%
L - not at all, it requires us to redefine certain words (to fit a preconceived idea) that need no such redefinition.
I - 10% or so, too much like L
P - about 99%, basically only the idea that we are saved and God keeps us, and not the part that relies on the other points

I'm much closer to Calvinism than Arminianism, but in reality, I'm neither.

As to John 6:29,

Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Our belief is God's work not our own work, if God by his free choice does not do His work on you will never believe on the one who God has sent.

I believe you are missing the context, a problem I've seen over and over with Calvinism. Jesus was asked what they could do to do the works of God. vs 29 was Jesus' answer. The 'work of God' is not a reference to what God does to/for us, it is a reference to 'doing the works of God'. That is, the ability to do good works requires faith. This verse in no way says God makes us believe.

 

[BBAS 64]

I'm about a 2.5

T - 80-90%
U - 50-60%
L - not at all, it requires us to redefine certain words (to fit a preconceived idea) that need no such redefinition.
I - 10% or so, too much like L
P - about 99%, basically only the idea that we are saved and God keeps us, and not the part that relies on the other points

I'm much closer to Calvinism than Arminianism, but in reality, I'm neither.

As to John 6:29,



I believe you are missing the context, a problem I've seen over and over with Calvinism. Jesus was asked what they could do to do the works of God. vs 29 was Jesus' answer. The 'work of God' is not a reference to what God does to/for us, it is a reference to 'doing the works of God'. That is, the ability to do good works requires faith. This verse in no way says God makes us believe.

Good Day, 2Timothy2

I do not see how have missed the context, the question is one that is grammical in nature.

If you are so inclined to post the contextual understanding of the whole chapter of Jn #6 from start to finish I will do the same. We ca look at every verse and how one reads context while up holding to a standard of grammer.


"Work of God".. can be seen as God's work.
"Word of God"... Who's word is it ?
"Lamb of God".... Who's Lamb is it ?
"Son of God".... Who's son is it?
"Spirit of God" .. Who's spirit is it?
"Mouth of God".... Who's mouth?

so, then Who's work is it?

Joh 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?


What is the "verb" here how is it constucted?

Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

What is you understanding of the three words in red here? What are the important "pharses" in this structure, wheater they be of a verbal construct or not.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[hindsey]

It looks like we're definitely under 50% of Calvinists in here (that is, full 5-point Calvinists). I really wasn't looking to start debating the doctrines in this thread, but I just wanted to see where everyone fell...

 

[eutychus]

It looks like we're definitely under 50% of Calvinists in here (that is, full 5-point Calvinists). I really wasn't looking to start debating the doctrines in this thread, but I just wanted to see where everyone fell...

That's okay...God knows your motives.