• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Minimum Requirements?

Discussion in 'Semper Reformanda' started by St_Worm2, Jan 24, 2018.

  1. 5

    10 vote(s)
    83.3%
  2. 4

    1 vote(s)
    8.3%
  3. 3

    1 vote(s)
    8.3%
  4. 2

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. 1

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. St_Worm2

    St_Worm2 Senior Member Supporter

    +37,217
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Republican
    *This thread is for Calvinists only (or for those who see/believe themselves to be Calvinists, even if they don't designate themselves as such here at CF). Thank you!

    edit: Actually, anyone is free to participate if they'd like to. If you are not a Calvinist however, please let us know that. Thanks!


    I just came from a Baptist thread started by Deacon Dean where the topic of who should be considered a Calvinist (and who should not) was brought up. This is hardly the first time that I've see this subject broached (and there is clearly some confusion surrounding it, especially by our non-Calvinist friends), so I thought it might be interesting to see if we could come up with a set of minimum requirements (of sorts) that define what a Calvinist is or is not.

    Clearly an Arminian, who shares a belief in the Perseverance of the Saints with us, should not be considered a Calvinist (right?). But at what point does a believer become one? 2 points/3 points/4 points??

    And what else than TULIP should be taken into consideration as a Calvinist "standard", as there are so many variations among those who claim to be Calvinists these days?

    Also, what beliefs go too far (and why)?

    Let's start with TULIP? Which petal/petals are required to be considered a true Calvinist, and which petal/petals are not (and why do you believe that)?

    Thanks for your help everyone :)

    For what it's worth, while I understand 'why' someone denies 1 or 2 of the petals, I've never understood 'how' it’s really possible to do so because of the way they work together and/or build upon one another under the banner of Total Depravity (in a manner not unlike the 5 Solas, in fact).

    --David
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2018
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. twin1954

    twin1954 Baptist by the Bible

    +1,324
    Calvinist
    Married
    Though anyone can call themselves a Calvinist under the broad umbrella that goes by that label to actually be one the minimum is to hold to all five points.

    The reason I say this is because none of the points stand alone. If you truly understand and believe in total depravity then it follows that you must believe in unconditional electing love. Anything else is not total depravity. The same with particular redemption.

    In order to be a Calvinist properly you must hold to all five points.
     
  3. JM

    JM pre·des·ti·nar·i·an Supporter

    +1,880
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    CA-Others
    All of them. Anything less is comprise.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  4. moonbeam

    moonbeam Senior Member Supporter

    +54
    Calvinist
    All 5 points combined make a cohesive whole... T.U.L.I.P.

    Calvinism (Biblical Soteriology) is succinctly defined by the 5 points.

    Nothing less.
     
  5. Marvin Knox

    Marvin Knox Senior Veteran

    +1,428
    Protestant
    Married
    I prefer the name "Reformed" rather than "Calvinist". Having said that - I would be considered a Calvinist by many Christians and that includes the "Baptist" variety. In fact - I currently attend a Reformed Baptist church - to be differentiated from what is called an "Arminian" Baptist church
    .
    While I would have to nuance every one of the 5 points to some degree to be entirely forthright in my beliefs - I would say that, in a general way, 4 points are necessary to be considered a "Calvinist".

    John Calvin was not a 5-point Calvinist in the "TULIP" tradition. The term "T.U.L.I.P." came along long after Calvin lived by the way.

    Notice these quotes by Calvin concerning so called "limited atonement". (To be entirely fair - Calvin went through many changes in his theology in his lifetime - as most of us who honestly approach theology do.)

    A FEW QUOTES BY JOHN CALVIN:

    1 John 2:2--"he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world"----------------------- "CHRIST SUFFERED FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD. and in the goodness of God is OFFERED UNTO ALL MEN WITHOUT DISTINCTION, HIS BLOOD BEING SHED NOT FOR A PART OF THE WORLD ONLY, BUT FOR THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE; for although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet he HOLDS OUT THE PROPITIATION TO THE WHOLE WORLD, since without exception he SUMMONS ALL TO THE FAITH OF CHRIST, which is nothing else than the door unto hope."

    Mark 14:24: "This is my blood of the new testament, WHICH IS SHED FOR MANY"..................... "The word 'many' DOES NOT MEAN A PART OF THE WORLD ONLY, BUT THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE: he contrasts many with one as if to say that he would not be the Redeemer of one man, but would meet death to deliver many of their cursed guilt. No doubt that in speaking to a few Christ wished to make His teaching available to a larger number...So when we come to the holy table not only should the general idea come to our mind that THE WORLD IS REDEEMED BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST but also each should reckon to himself that his own sins are covered.

    Romans 5:18: "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
    "Paul makes grace COMMON TO ALL MEN, not because it in fact EXTENDS TO ALL, but because IT IS OFFERED TO ALL. Although CHRIST SUFFERED FOR THE SINS OF THE WORLD. AND IS OFFERED BY THE GOODNESS OF GOD WITHOUT DISTINCTION TO ALL MEN, yet not all receive him"

    Calvin's "LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT, April 25, 1564":
    "I testify also and declare, that I suppliantly beg of Him, that He may be pleased so to was and purify me in the blood which my Sovereign Redeemer HAS SHED FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE, that under His shadow I may be able to stand at the judgment-seat....

    Mark 14:24 passage:
    COMMENTARY ON A HARMONY OF THE EVANGELISTS, MATTHEW, MARK, AND LUKE, BY JOHN CALVIN
    TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL LATIN, AND COLLATED WITH THE AUTHOR'S FRENCH VERSION, VOLUME THIRD BY THE REV. WILLIAM PRINGLE
    CHRISTIAN CLASSICS ETHEREAL LIBRARY -- GRAND RAPIDS, MI

    Romans 5:18 passage:
    COMMENTARIES ON THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE ROMANS
    BY JOHN CALVIN
    TRANSLATED AND EDITED BY THE REV. JOHN OWEN, VICAR OF THRUSSINGTON, LEICESTERSHIRE
    CHRISTIAN CLASSICS ETHEREAL LIBRARY GRAND RAPIDS, MI

    Concerning Calvin’s will:
    History of the Christian Church, Volume VIII: Modern Christianity. “The Swiss Reformation”
    § 165. Calvin’s Last Will, and Farewells.

    Regarding the 1 John 2:2 passage the best I can do is give you the reference that I have. I do not have a reference from the works of Calvin himself. Perhaps you can better research it out better than I was able to.

    Dr. Augustus H. Strong, in his standard Systematic Theology Vol. II, Doctrine of Salvation, page 778, quotes from “CALVIN'S LATER COMMENTS”

    Here are a few more things to consider (from the same Calvin source as before (different volumes).

    Concerning John 1.29 “And when he says, the sin Of The World, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race… and that as all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God…Now our duty is, to embrace the benefit which is offered to all, that each of us may be convinced that there is nothing to hinder him from obtaining reconciliation in Christ, provided that he comes to him by the guidance of faith

    Concerning John 3:14-16 “…that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish…And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life…”

    Concerning John 16:8-11 “…Under the term world are, I think, included not only those who would be truly converted to Christ, but hypocrites and reprobates

    Concerning Gal. 5:12 “His indignation proceeds still farther, and he prays for destruction on those impostors by whom the Galatians had been deceived. The word, "cut off," appears to be employed in allusion to the circumcision which they pressed. "They tear the church for the sake of circumcision: I wish they were entirely cut off." Chrysostom favors this opinion. But how can such an imprecation be reconciled with the mildness of an apostle, who ought to wish that all should be saved, and that not a single person should perish? So far as men are concerned, I admit the force of this argument; for it is the will of God that we should seek the salvation of all men without exception, as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world

    Concerning Col. 1:14 “He says that this redemption was procured through the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated

    Call me old fashioned - But I think that John Calvin (above all current so called "Calvinists") should be considered the premier authority concerning who is and is not a true "Calvinist".
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2018
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  6. Apologetic_Warrior

    Apologetic_Warrior Well-Known Member

    +3,030
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Five (siding with the Synod of Dort making the important distinctions) , however from personal experience, the realization of these doctrines may require considerable time and working diligently through Scripture and the biblical theology therein. Sometimes people get frustrated and give up or settle with unnecessary tensions and conflicts. Perhaps others may settle into whatever doctrines are taught at a particular Church where they find agreement for the most part. But I suspect there is a whole host of reasons for differences.

    B.B. Warfield wrote a detailed encyclopedia article on this subject, it's on Mongergism if you're interested. :) I encourage people to read it, at least in part, is worth the effort.

    Technically those condemned historically by the Reformed world? It is a difficult question, and others would be better suited to answer. I feel generous within a broader range of Christianity, but I live in a far different time, where the mentality of the old Reformed world, though debatable, might prove more harmful than productive, because in the old world, the Reformed represented a majority of Protestant Christians.

    If we accept C.H. Spurgeon's meaning of "Calvinism" as another word for "Christian", I would be forced to say none (shocking?). Children do not have a mature understanding of doctrine, neither do "baby" Christians. God gives growth, and that by grace, for His glory and purposes. In defense of Spurgeon though, there is a context for his statement an entire sermon to be sure. I believe a true Christian, maturing in the faith, seeking the truth diligently will grow in doctrinal knowledge, as the Spirit of truth will illuminate and lead believers into fuller expression of true doctrine, and truths previously unknown. If I were to sum up true Calvinism in two words they would be: Sovereign Grace, and this compels me to be patient and gracious with all Christians and especially Christians out of all other peoples.

    Perhaps rather than "true" I prefer the term "consistent", the most consistent Calvinists (using Spurgeon's meaning) are tulip smelling five pointers in love with the sovereign grace of God, with a God centered interpretation of Scripture, embracing the Lordship of Jesus Christ in every area of life.
     
  7. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,570
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Since I am mentioned by name, I thought I should respond.

    Twin1954 has been a very good friend and brother ever since I joined this forum. Just like him, I once carried the Baptist icon. I have since changed to "Calvinist".

    I have always supported the T.U.L.I.P. outline, and believe it 100%.

    I was educated in seminary. rather, one of my professors saw to it, I was given a "Reformed" education.

    Now, I don't have a "hard-copy" of Institutes, but I did download it.

    For the most part, I agree nearly 100% with what Calvin taught. The only exception is his beliefs/convictions on pedobaptism.

    I was also told that because I don't support "pedobaptism", that would make me "less of a Calvinist".

    His defense of "pedobaptism" can be found here:

    "Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin, Book IV, Of the Holy Catholic Church, Chapter XVI, "PÆDOBAPTISM. ITS ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST, AND THE NATURE OF THE SIGN."

    Unless I'm mistaken, a lot of what he says here, mirrors Catholicism with the exception of it being salvific.

    In 13 years of being in the Baptist area, I have seen members who claim to agree with all, and/or some of the T.U.L.I.P. outline. hence 3 point, 4 point, etc.

    Now I disagree with his (Calvin) teaching on "pedobaptism", but other than that, I agree.

    Now, if this means I can not be counted as a "Calvinist", tell me and I will revert to my Baptist icon.

    But before I do, let me say this.

    Folks, we are also talking theology here, and nobody other than Christ was 100% correct in their theology.

    Jesus Christ was the only person I know of that had a 100% correct theology.

    Now, if I don't meet your "minimum requirements" for being a Calvinist, just say so.

    I'll revert back to my Baptist icon, and leave this area.

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
  8. Apologetic_Warrior

    Apologetic_Warrior Well-Known Member

    +3,030
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Brother Dean, I do not know who you have in mind in your post, but as far as I am concerned, you are 100% Calvinist, and one of my favorite posters on CF.

    The Canons of Dort had nothing to do with Baptism, neither am I persuaded Baptism (nor eschatology) defines, nor central to the distinctives of Calvinism. Years ago when learning about Covenantal Theology, I learned that Calvinistic Baptists historically held to a Covenantal Theology. So at least in my small mind, the differences between Presbyterian and Calvinistic Baptists are minuscule, such that we should be able to discuss differences and give each other a big :hug: afterwards...the relationship between John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul comes to mind.
     
  9. sdowney717

    sdowney717 Newbie

    +1,551
    Christian
    All 5 together simply work well with all of the scriptures showing the intent of God choosing and calling out a people for Himself from the world.

    People who object mostly don't like the limited atonement, and the God choosing those who will be saved beforehand independent of the persons will. If you start cutting off multiple slabs of the doctrine, slicing and dicing this and that, then you end up with a big mess that is inherently nonsensical, you have to twist the meanings of too many scriptures, and we all know that will produce bad fruit.
     
  10. JimmyH

    JimmyH Newbie Supporter

    34
    +18
    Christian
    Celibate
    US-Others
    Brother Dean, I don't see anything about paedo, or credo Baptism in T.U.L.I.P.
    AFAIC paedobaptism is a symbol of the covenant, the same way that circumcision of infant males at 8 days old was.
    If you hold to the 5 points, which I believe can be Scripturally supported, you are a Calvinist. Which incidentally, John Calvin never claimed that title for the theology AFAIK.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  11. St_Worm2

    St_Worm2 Senior Member Supporter

    +37,217
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Hi Brothers, I apologize. I never intended for this thread to be thought of as a witch hunt. Rather, as I was once again considering how confused the non-Calvinist world (both Christian and non-Christian) always seems to be about Calvinism and what it actually teaches, I was hoping to learn what each of you believed and why for the sake of our non-Calvinist friends (because there are differences among us), not decide who does and who does not deserve the title, "Calvinist".

    So, if this thread is (or becomes) a problem for anyone here, just PM me and I will have the mods close it (and hopefully remove it).

    Thanks everyone :) (and thanks for, what seems to me anyway, to be a great discussion so far!!)

    In Christ,
    David
     
  12. twin1954

    twin1954 Baptist by the Bible

    +1,324
    Calvinist
    Married
    Brother Dean,
    I am still glad that you consider me a brother and friend. We all know that you are a staunch and faithful Calvinist. You were mentioned in the thread only because it was your thread in the Baptist area that prompted this one. Your Calvism wasn't in question and never could be.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  13. JM

    JM pre·des·ti·nar·i·an Supporter

    +1,880
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    CA-Others
    Who cares if you're a Calvinist! If you miss the covenantal aspects of divine scripture you are still not thinking biblically, you might as well be an Arminian. ^_^
     
  14. twin1954

    twin1954 Baptist by the Bible

    +1,324
    Calvinist
    Married
    I wouldn't call MacArthur a Arminian but he sure does miss the covenantal aspect of the Scripture.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  15. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,570
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Baptism isn't the question here.

    The question is/was what qualifies as a Calvinist.

    The reason why "baptism" came into this discussion was it was mentioned that because I disagreed with John Calvin on the issue of "infant baptism", as outlined in "Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapter 16".

    It was implied that because I disagreed with him on his viewpoint of infant baptism, I really couldn't/shouldn't identify as a "Calvinist".

    Now brother twin, you and I have be compadres for a long time. Been through quit a few debates in the Baptist area. (Remember PrincetonGuy? GordonSlocum/Easystreet/Benefactor? Ozpen?)

    How many times did you and I hear that such-and-such claimed to be a 4 pointer, or 3 pointer?

    Like I said, we are talking "theology" here. Nobody has a theology that's 100% correct. I like Augustine. I have read Thomas Aquinas and have picked up a few tid-bits of useful information from him. I have read thoroughly James Arminius' theology, and if it wasn't for a few points where he is dead wrong, could very well have been Arminian in theology. I am an "olde tyme Baptist". That is what I consider myself. I have "Abstract of Systematic Theology" from James P. Boyce. I also have read and thoroughly enjoyed "Manual of Theology" from John Leland Dagg. Very good read! I like Martin Luther, although I disagree with him on his stance towards Jews. I was even once accused of being "hyper-Calvinist" because I have read, studied, and love John Gill's "Body of Doctrinal Divinity" and "Body of Practical Divinity", and "The Cause of God and Truth" which in 100% in favor of the T.U.L.I.P outline.

    Jesus Christ, as far as I'm concerned, is the only person to have a 100% correct "theology". Others come close, by never 100%.

    That is why I say I disagree with John Calvin on "infant baptism".

    And, if taken "as is", some would have me disqualified as a "Calvinist".

    Must one agree fully with a certain "theology" in order to be qualified as a "Calvinist"?

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
  16. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,570
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    John Calvin supported the belief that baptism replaced circumcision after Pentecost.

    And here again, baptism wasn't the issue. The implication was that because I disagreed with Calvin on his view of infant baptism, I couldn't/shouldn't call myself a Calvinist.

    And if you want to get really technical, neither the term Calvinist, or Remonstrants (Arminian), came until well after each person passed away.

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
  17. Apologetic_Warrior

    Apologetic_Warrior Well-Known Member

    +3,030
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Nope, and I rather appreciate the freedom and diversity within Calvinism. It can be healthy and helpful, especially for those shifting a bit, for those not settled into a position here or there to have guides and other sources to consider in the process.
     
  18. JM

    JM pre·des·ti·nar·i·an Supporter

    +1,880
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    CA-Others
    Yes, of course. Your soteriological position must be 'Calvinist' to be called a Calvinist.

    If I'm honest I don't like the easy, breezy manner modern Christians adapt terms and names and misuse them. A Calvinist holds to the Canons of Dort in response to the Arminian onslaught. The term Reformed is another matter.

    Yours in the Lord,

    jm
    PS: Norm Geisler is not a Calvinist and is the perfect example of how not to use the term. He only agrees with P and even then he changes the meaning to boarder on antinomianism.
     
  19. Apologetic_Warrior

    Apologetic_Warrior Well-Known Member

    +3,030
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Could be wrong but I think Dean's point is "fully" (Baptism being context), and I fully agree with you on soteriology as already expressed in this thread.

    No disagreement here.

    Before I became a Calvinist, Geisler was like my go to source for apologetcs, philosophy, and other issues. After becoming a Calvinist, though I still own the resources I had purchased, they're of little value to me, I mean they can be useful, but I take little pleasure in having to sort out the wheat from the chaff, and there are other resources, more reliable and trustworthy resources to go to. A few years ago I thought I would listen to Geisler on Calvinism, and I say thought because upon listening for a short time I had to turn that garbage off, it was literally giving me a headache the manner he approached the whole subject matter. So yeah, Geisler turned out to be a major disappointment to me personally, and it is a shame that he has referred to himself as a "moderate Calvinist" because he clearly is not, and being a man of his understanding and intelligence, it borders on bearing false witness.
     
  20. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,570
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Let me put this another way.

    When I started seminary classes, I had already been a Christian/Baptist for 30 plus years. When it came time to take the Systematic Theology class, I was so excited.

    You see, its not enough for me to hear the preacher say this or that on a particular doctrine. I wanted not only to see what smarter people than myself said, but also what the scriptures say for themselves.

    And this is where Systematic Theology is a giant plus. Regarding this subject, although I don't have as many books on the subject as say my brother twin1954, I do possess somewhere between 30 and 40 volumes by various authors on just this subject alone.

    I have Systematic Theology books from the Baptist side, Calvinist side, Arminian side, Catholic side, Presbyterian side, Methodist side, and even some from the viewpoint of Neo-orthodoxy.

    And here again, it boils down to this, we are talking about theology in its fullest meaning. Not one single theology professor from Christ's time, up to today, January 31, 2018, have any theologian had a theology that was 100% correct.

    The only person who qualified for that, was/is the Son of the Living God.

    If I disagree with John Calvin on his personal theology regarding "infant baptism" or his personal view regarding "real presence" that should not be a disqualifier for me to be or call myself a "Calvinist".

    Since my thread in the Baptist area spurred this, let me quote you what I said, and the response I got.

    DeaconDean:

    "Some Baptists would deny that we are Protestant. Some affirm it.

    Nevertheless, the statement was made:

    "Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians all affirm the real presence of Christ in holy communion even though they hold very different views about the meaning of "real presence"."

    I deny it, but, what are your views.:

    In order to protect the opponent, I will omit the name, but will mention the Denomination.

    Presbyterian:

    "If you deny it then you cannot call yourself a Calvinist. He affirmed it."

    Like I said, I have "Institutes" and have read it, and studied it.

    Unless I'm sadly mistaken, or perhaps I fell asleep, and "glazed" over it, I do not recall John Calvin supporting the RCC's position of "real presence".

    Here is what I know:

    "Calvin followed Augustine in defining a sacrament as “a visible sign of a sacred thing” or as a “visible word” of God. The sacraments, according to Calvin, are inseparably attached to the Word. The sacraments seal the promises found in the Word. In regard to the Lord’s Supper, more specifically, it is given to seal the promise that those who partake of the bread and wine in faith truly partake of the body and blood of Christ. Calvin explains this in terms of the believer’s mystical union with Christ. Just as baptism is connected with the believer’s initiation into union with Christ, the Lord’s Supper strengthens the believer’s ongoing union with Christ.

    All of this raises a question. How does Calvin understand the nature of Christ’s presence in the Supper? According to Calvin the sacraments are signs. The signs and the things signified must be distinguished without being separated. Calvin rejects the idea that the sacramental signs are merely symbols (for example, Zwingli). But he also rejects the idea that the signs are transformed into the things they signify (for example, Rome). Calvin argues that when Christ uses the words, “This is my body,” the name of the thing signified (“body”) is applied to the sign (the bread).

    Calvin repeatedly stated that his argument with the Roman Catholics and with Luther was not over the fact of Christ’s presence, but only over the mode of that presence. According to Calvin, Christ’s human body is locally present in heaven, but it does not have to descend in order for believers to truly partake of it because the Holy Spirit effects communion. The Holy Spirit is the bond of the believer’s union with Christ. Therefore that which the minister does on the earthly plane, the Holy Spirit accomplishes on the spiritual plane. In other words, those who partake of the bread and wine in faith are also, by the power of the Holy Spirit, being nourished by the body and blood of Christ.

    This, of course, raises a second question regarding the mode by which believers partake of the body and blood of Christ. Zwingli had argued that to eat and drink the body and blood of Christ was simply a synonym for believing in Christ. Calvin begged to differ. He argued that the eating of the body of Christ is not equivalent to faith; instead, it is the result of faith. Calvin often used the term “spiritual eating” to describe the mode by which believers partake, but he is careful to define what he means. He asserts repeatedly that “spiritual eating” does not mean that believers partake only of Christ’s spirit. “Spiritual eating” means, according to Calvin, that by faith believers partake of the body and blood of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit who pours the life of Christ into them.

    Calvin also rejected the idea that we partake of the body and blood of Christ with the mouth. Not only Rome, but Luther and his followers, asserted the doctrine of oral manducation (that is, oral eating). According to the Lutherans, the body of Christ is orally eaten, but it is a supernatural or hyperphysical eating rather than a natural or physical eating. Both believers and unbelievers receive the body of Christ according to the Lutherans, although unbelievers receive it to their own judgment. Calvin denied that unbelievers receive the body of Christ at all. According to Calvin, the body and blood of Christ are objectively offered to all, but only received by believers.

    According to Calvin, the Lord’s Supper is also “a bond of love” intended to produce mutual love among believers. It is to inspire thanksgiving and gratitude. Because it is at the very heart of Christian worship, Calvin argued that it should be observed whenever the Word is preached, or “at least once a week.” It should be shorn of all superstition and observed in its biblical simplicity. Calvin considered the Lord’s Supper to be a divine gift given by Christ himself to His people to nourish and strengthen their faith. As such, it is not to be neglected, but rather celebrated often and with joy."

    Source

    Even at that, what defines a "Calvinist"?

    Adherence to the T.U.L.I.P outline?

    Adherence to "Institues"?

    I must remind you that the T.U.L.I.P. outline came some 54 years after the death of John Calvin.

    But let me also remind you of what a dear brother here, of whom I would accept correction from, said about me:

    "... you are a staunch and faithful Calvinist."

    And I will, until proven 100% wrong, defend the Calvinist, and Baptist position until the day I die.

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
Loading...