The 4-point Calvinist's position - Nearer truth than full Calvinism or Arminianism?

Marvin Knox · Feb 13, 2015

striger said:
There is nothing on that denomination. The poster made it up to make a statement that the presbyterians worship john calvin instead of jesus Christ. The poster found a loophole in the rules to say that and got away with it. Instead, I broke the rules for claiming it don't exist.

striger said:
It was against the rules for me to comment on a non-existant denomination.

I've been trying to understand what this "rules" business is all about.

Regarding Presbyterians worship of Calvin - I likewise miss your point.

The after the name of the denomination should have easily cleared up whether the name was uttered in jest or not - just in case such a thing wasn't readily apparent in the first place.

The question was what denomination teaches 4-point Calvinism.

My point was simple. If John Calvin's own words make him out to be less than a 5-pointer (as commonly understood) - then maybe the 5 points of TULIP are what are in error.

The question I would ask is if there are any denominations that include "TULIP" in their creeds. I could be wrong. But I don't think so.

What denomination has the words "limited atonement" in any of it's creeds?

I know (for instance) that some may interpret the Westminster in a way that teaches limited atonement wrongly IMO. But as a former Presbyterian of many many years, who has taught the Westminster many times, I can say that it doesn't teach limited atonement in the way it is often taught.

It clearly reinforces that God is in charge of who gets saved and who does not. The Scriptures are clear that God has an exact plan that doesn't include universal salvation.

But that is not the same as saying what many limited atonement teachers stress so offensively to millions of non Calvinists - that Christ died only for the elect.

Again - what denomination includes any creed that teaches that? To my knowledge none do.

Many Calvinists believe and teach it that way - right here in this thread for instance. But as a creed or confession? I don't think so.

I could be wrong about that. But then even if someone knows of a denomination that says that directly - they would still be wrong about it IMO.

James Is Back · Feb 13, 2015

So Marvin are you an Amyraldist?

sdowney717 · Feb 13, 2015

Marvin Knox said:
I've been trying to understand what this "rules" business is all about.

Regarding Presbyterians worship of Calvin - I likewise miss your point.

The after the name of the denomination should have easily cleared up whether the name was uttered in jest or not - just in case such a thing wasn't readily apparent in the first place.

The question was what denomination teaches 4-point Calvinism.

My point was simple. If John Calvin's own words make him out to be less than a 5-pointer (as commonly understood) - then maybe the 5 points of TULIP are what are in error.

The question I would ask is if there are any denominations that include "TULIP" in their creeds. I could be wrong. But I don't think so.

What denomination has the words "limited atonement" in any of it's creeds?

I know (for instance) that some may interpret the Westminster in a way that teaches limited atonement wrongly IMO. But as a former Presbyterian of many many years, who has taught the Westminster many times, I can say that it doesn't teach limited atonement in the way it is often taught.

It clearly reinforces that God is in charge of who gets saved and who does not. The Scriptures are clear that God has an exact plan that doesn't include universal salvation.

But that is not the same as saying what many limited atonement teachers stress so offensively to millions of non Calvinists - that Christ died only for the elect.

Again - what denomination includes any creed that teaches that? To my knowledge none do.

Many Calvinists believe and teach it that way - right here in this thread for instance. But as a creed or confession? I don't think so.

I could be wrong about that. But then even if someone knows of a denomination that says that directly - they would still be wrong about it IMO.

It is certainly possible, maybe likey the reformers went beyond what Calvin wrote. But that is ok if they do not go beyond the scriptures.

Calvin also did not have any Arminians to contend with, so some of those questions about what Calvin might have said will just remain unanswered.

Calvin may also have changed his mind, being a human being, people do change, God does not change.

Albion · Feb 13, 2015

Marvin Knox said:
Regarding Presbyterians worship of Calvin - I likewise miss your point.

The after the name of the denomination should have easily cleared up whether the name was uttered in jest or not - just in case such a thing wasn't readily apparent in the first place.

Exactly so. It's almost unbelievable that anyone here would have mistaken what was written there for the name of any denomination, either real or hypothetical.

The question was what denomination teaches 4-point Calvinism.

Yes. And more than a couple of us would like that question to be answered, if anyone has the answer.

My point was simple. If John Calvin's own words make him out to be less than a 5-pointer (as commonly understood) - then maybe the 5 points of TULIP are what are in error.

The question I would ask is if there are any denominations that include "TULIP" in their creeds. I could be wrong. But I don't think so.

What denomination has the words "limited atonement" in any of it's creeds?

This may depend upon what you mean by "Creeds." I'm willing to guess that there are some of the more conservative Presbyterian or Reformed denominations that include it in their statements of belief.

drstevej · Feb 13, 2015

The issue of the extent of the atonement was not an issue in Calvin's day. It was an issue raised my Moises Amyraut and his doctrine of hypothetical universalism which was countered by Francis Turretin et al, in the Second Helvetic Confession.

Marvin Knox · Feb 13, 2015

James Is Back said:
So Marvin are you an Amyraldist?

Caucasian!

Seriously - generally Reformed with a dispensational bent and a strong disagreement as to whether Jesus bore the sins of only some and not of others. I believe He bore the punishment for every sin in the history of creation in this age - past present and future.

Marvin Knox · Feb 13, 2015

Originally Posted by drstevej

I think there are texts that have to be strained to fit Limited atonement.

sdowney717 said,
"Verses like these?

This in Mark seems to fit very well.
Mark 4

10 But when He was alone, those around Him with the twelve asked Him about the parable. 11 And He said to them, To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, 12 so that

Seeing they may see and not perceive,
And hearing they may hear and not understand;
Lest they should turn,
And their sins be forgiven them.[c]

Matt 1
21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.

Isa. 53:8

Isaiah 53:8New King James Version (NKJV)

8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.

John 10:15New King James Version (NKJV)

15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep."

Exactly like those.
Interesting choice of texts.

Your choice of proof texts exhibit classic limited atonement proponent's errors of assumption.

drstevej · Feb 13, 2015

To my way of thinking, if one truly believes in Total Depravity, Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace... then the extent of the atonement is a moot point and Perseverance is a necessary corollary.

That is my conclusion after a ThM at Dallas Seminary, a PhD in Reformation History at Westminster and forty years of teaching as a pastor.

The term Limited Attainment captures my understanding of the issue.

Marvin Knox · Feb 13, 2015

sdowney717 said:
Calvin may also have changed his mind, being a human being, people do change, God does not change.

Absolutely!
Calvin (seems to me) changed his mind on this subject several times.

Would that hard line 5-pointers would admit making erroneous assumptions and take a much less offensive line concerning limited atonement.

If they insist on using the acronym TULIP - they should simply say that the extent of the salvational application of the atonement is limited to only those who believe. Even then - the sovereignty of God in salvation is preserved in the other letters well enough that the "L" isn't even necessary in the first place IMO.

Almost every set of words supposedly represented by the individual letters are pointedly qualified and explained when TULIP is taught (even by the likes of Sproal, MacArthur, Boice, et all) since there is so much confusion among Arminians and Calvinists alike as to what is meant by every one of the terms.

Nowhere is that more evident than with "limited atonement". To the extent that the concept is Biblical - the entire set of words is unfortunate.

Adding the qualifiers almost every Reformed teacher adds concerning the "unlimited" value or sufficiency of the atonement not being questioned in the word "limited" - is a cop-out IMO.

The way "limited" is often understood and presented makes it clear to me, as well as almost every Arminian listening, that many and even most Calvinists do not believe in the unlimited value of the atonement at all. If Christ's work was only meant for the "sheep" and if it was only for a portion of the "world" and all of the other tortured lingo used by Calvinists - then the value of His shed blood is indeed limited. Simply covering yourselves with nonsense about it's value not withstanding.

The fact is that God and God alone gets to set value on the blood of Christ. He has clearly set a value on it that makes it sufficient for salvation when and if it has faith added to it. That is true concerning the elect and the non-elect likewise.

The offer is valid for both elect and non-elect simply because it only has salvational value when faith is added.

If that sounds a little too "Arminian" for Calvinists - they need to get over it anf maybe not even claim to be Calvinists at all. Simply say they are Bible believers who use many Reformed concepts in explaining their findings in the Scriptures.

The situation concerning that necessary faith's likelihood of being added is addressed elsewhere in the other 4-letters (even if they need a little tweaking themselves IMO).

Marvin Knox · Feb 13, 2015

drstevej said:
The term Limited Attainment captures my understanding of the issue.

Me too.

But then my understanding of what is the Scripturally based meaning of the term is obviously different than that of many others who use the term.

Therein lies the rub!

Albion · Feb 13, 2015

drstevej said:
To my way of thinking, if one truly believes in Total Depravity, Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace... then the extent of the atonement is a moot point and Perseverance is a necessary corollary.

That is my conclusion after a ThM at Dallas Seminary, a PhD in Reformation History at Westminster and forty years of teaching as a pastor.

The term Limited Attainment captures my understanding of the issue.

From my less than expert opinion, that's how it seems to me also. If someone says that Limited Atonement ought to be dropped, I'd agree that we could go with TUIP just as well, and everything would remain the same except that it doesn't spell anything.

drstevej · Feb 13, 2015

TUIP is Christmas Calvinism.... no-L

James Is Back · Feb 13, 2015

Albion said:
From my less than expert opinion, that's how it seems to me also. If someone says that Limited Atonement ought to be dropped, I'd agree that we could go with TUIP just as well, and everything would remain the same except that it doesn't spell anything.

Yes it does it spells Tuip

Albion · Feb 13, 2015

drstevej said:
TUIP is Christmas Calvinism.... no-L

It took me a second.

Marvin Knox · Feb 13, 2015

drstevej said:
TUIP is Christmas Calvinism.... no-L

I've always liked that term - "Christmas Calvinism".

But then, as everyone says, it doesn't leave much of an acronym with T.U.I.P.

For that reason (if the acronym must be used) make sure to teach something along the line of "limited salvation" or anything along those lines.

The idea being that universal salvation is rejected automatically due to the embracing of the concept of total "inability" and that irresistible grace is only extended to those unconditionally elected as vessels for the display of God's grace.

As I have taught through the Westminster in the past - a few times T.U.L.I.P. has been brought into the discussion even though the acronym (or the Cannons of Dort for that matter) are not part of our creeds and confessions.

I explained limited atonement as above as well as explained the other terms in such a way that there is no confusion. For instance total depravity is not the same as utter depravity and such. Due to the all pervasive nature of the fallen nature, there results in an inability to respond in a positive way. etc.

Finally, just to reiterate, even the most rabid Arminian usually rejects universal salvation and therefore agrees that salvation is limited in some way. What causes offense is the insistence by a great many Calvinists that Christ did not die for all.

The (IMO) tortured assumptions of dying only for His sheep and world not meaning world and such things is what leaves Calvinists open to scorn and even hatred by most other evangelicals.

Such things are usually arrived at as the only logical conclusion because there would be double jeopardy if anyone for whom Christ died found himself in Hell. I believe that to be faulty logic whether it comes from someone here or great and famous Reformed teachers like D. James Kennedy, R.C. Sproul or any of dozens of good men who arrive at that supposed logic.

The other doctrines of grace are often rejected outright because (I believe) most people are offended by the idea that the gospel offer can not therefore really sincere on the part of God.

Reformed teachers should never be expected to not teach the truth because it may offend. But we don't need to stretch the truth and cause unnecessary offense.

drstevej · Feb 13, 2015

I coined the term Christmas Calvinist

sdowney717 · Feb 13, 2015

1 Corinthians 15:3-4New International Version (NIV)

[FONT=&quot]3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for everyone's sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Notice anything wrong with that verse?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Marvin Knox · Feb 13, 2015

drstevej said:
I coined the term Christmas Calvinist

When you used it last month in this thread, I liked it and I planned right away to use it myself when T.U.L.I.P. is the topic.

I'll try to give you credit if not royalties.

We'll see about the "Liver and Onions Parable" though.

Marvin Knox · Feb 13, 2015

sdowney717 said:
1 Corinthians 15:3-4New International Version (NIV)

[FONT=&quot]3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for everyone's sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Notice anything wrong with that verse?[/FONT]

I knew there was a reason why I use a version other than the New International.

Do please tell me that you are not going to try to make the case that because Christ died for the Corinthian's sins He couldn't have died for the sins of anyone else.

That would even top references to His sheep and the "world" of the elect.

All feigned shock aside - this is a perfect example of the kind of "tortured" exegesis that is usually used when 5-pointers talk about limited atonement.

Forced doctrine like this is one reason why our Reformed teachings are often held in such low regard by Arminians.

It works both ways of course. But two wrongs don't make a right.

FireDragon76 · Mar 1, 2015

"4 point Calvinism" is usually called Amyraldianism, named after the French Protestant theologian that came up with the definition. It was actually a widespread teaching among Calvinists outside of the UK.

The 4-point Calvinist's position - Nearer truth than full Calvinism or Arminianism?

Senior Veteran

CF's Official Locksmith

Newbie

Facilitator

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Facilitator

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

CF's Official Locksmith

Facilitator

Senior Veteran

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency