Understanding Calvinism

[2thePoint]

One example should suffice ;

One either accepts the Doctrine of "the Security Of Salvation" or one does not , there is no middle ground .

There are Arminians who accept SOS and Arminians who do not, so one cannot use SOS as a litmus test for Calvinism.

 

[Pinkman]

If you agree with Dort (5 Points/TULIP) then you are Calvinist in your soteriology , if you do not then you are Arminian in your Soteriology , it's that simple !

I have never seen a poster who objected to Dort come up with anything but Arminian views deductions and conclusions , even though they almost always claim to not be Arminian their views are just the same.

One example should suffice ;

One either accepts the Doctrine of "the Security Of Salvation" or one does not , there is no middle ground .

Hi cygnusx1

Thanks for your input.

May I disagree with you. I am not so sure about posters as I am a newbie.

I have debated TULIP quite a bit and I have found there is quite a lot of different versions of what total depravity means. I used to be hard line but now I am not so sure.

Also regarding the security of salvation, if I remember right, David Paulson who is a British theologian wrote a book called 'Once saved always saved ?'. He also has a video on youtube. He puts forward convincing arguments that one can lose ones salvation. In fact give it up - not having it plucked from God's hand.

My upbringing was that if one left the faith then one was not really saved in the first place. I am not arguing against that as I am not a trained/gifted theologian. David Paulson has 80 verses to support his case.

I'd be interested to hear your views.

 

[Pinkman]

Also what about Christmas calvinist no(L) ?

 

[Pinkman]

Hi 2 the point

This is off topic , I like your signature.

"How can people look at the space shuttle and say "Design!", but look at its designers and say "Accident!"?"

Reminds me of Sir Fred Hoyle who came up with the saying " Evolution is akin to a hurricane blowing through a junk yard and all the bits falling at random just happened to form into a Boeing 747".

I believe it was in 1944 that Sir Fred was visiting a cinema in my home town and the film gave him an idea which turned into his 'steady state theory' of the universe.

Also off topic.

Where are the non-hyper Calvinists ? Have they been raptured ?

 

[cygnusx1]

There are Arminians who accept SOS and Arminians who do not, so one cannot use SOS as a litmus test for Calvinism.

One swallow doesn't make a summer ....

Arminian OSAS dogma is something quite different from "The Final Perseverance Of The Saints"

 

[cygnusx1]

Hi cygnusx1

Thanks for your input.

May I disagree with you. I am not so sure about posters as I am a newbie.

I have debated TULIP quite a bit and I have found there is quite a lot of different versions of what total depravity means. I used to be hard line but now I am not so sure.

Also regarding the security of salvation, if I remember right, David Paulson who is a British theologian wrote a book called 'Once saved always saved ?'. He also has a video on youtube. He puts forward convincing arguments that one can lose ones salvation. In fact give it up - not having it plucked from God's hand.

My upbringing was that if one left the faith then one was not really saved in the first place. I am not arguing against that as I am not a trained/gifted theologian. David Paulson has 80 verses to support his case.

I'd be interested to hear your views.

Hi Pinkman , as I just posted OSAS held by inconsistant "Arminians" is something very different from The Security Of Salvation .

The Final Perseverance Of The Saints is the Calvinist understanding of the security of salvation , it acknowledges Biblical warnings and grasps God has put safe guards over this doctrine.

D Pawlson is wrong .

The best work I have read is Pinks "Eternal Security" .

 

[cygnusx1]

Also what about Christmas calvinist no(L) ?

They would fall into the category of Inconsistent Calvinists .

My point remains , there are Calvinists and everyone else are by default Arminian , in the sense that one either holds to Dort or one doesn't , you cannot (prove me wrong if you can) hold to TULIP and oppose it . It's either one or the other ...

Total Depravity (man cannot seek or turn to God without God's Grace ) is either true or false , there is no middle ground .

Unconditional Election is either true or false , it leaves no room for an alternative .

Limited Atonement is either Biblical or it is not.

Irresistible Grace is either true or false , depending upon which you hold determines if you are a Calvinist , or Arminian in your soteriology .

Perseverance Of The Saints is either true or false , there is no middle ground.

Conclusion ;

We either find ourselves agreeing with Dort (Calvinists) or disagreeing with Dort (Arminian)

Calvinists
Arminians
Inconsistent Calvinists (NoL)
Inconsistent Arminians (OSAS)

 

[2thePoint]

Hi 2 the point

This is off topic , I like your signature.

Thanks!

Where are the non-hyper Calvinists ? Have they been raptured ?

One swallow doesn't make a summer ....

When it is claimed that this point is a make/break or benchmark, finding it to be held by both sides is not something to be ignored. That one swallow topples the claim.

Arminian OSAS dogma is something quite different from "The Final Perseverance Of The Saints"

They reach the same destination by different routes: the saved will persist.

 

[heymikey80]

Hi cygnusx1

Thanks for your input.

May I disagree with you. I am not so sure about posters as I am a newbie.

I have debated TULIP quite a bit and I have found there is quite a lot of different versions of what total depravity means. I used to be hard line but now I am not so sure.

Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin; without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform. Canons of Dordt, 3.3

Also regarding the security of salvation, if I remember right, David Paulson who is a British theologian wrote a book called 'Once saved always saved ?'. He also has a video on youtube. He puts forward convincing arguments that one can lose ones salvation. In fact give it up - not having it plucked from God's hand.

My upbringing was that if one left the faith then one was not really saved in the first place. I am not arguing against that as I am not a trained/gifted theologian. David Paulson has 80 verses to support his case.

I'd be interested to hear your views.

In short: the need to persevere is not coordinate with the ability to stop persevering.

We can take Pawson's cited verses one at a time, or separate each generic grouping. Hafta realize though, the groupings will be based on another interpretation.

RT Kendall also wrote a book titled "Once Saved, Always Saved" -- no question. There's also Gromacki's book, "Is Salvation Forever?"

 

[Jpark]

Who complains, also who suggest 'he has to' ?

It's a general view these days.

People take issue they deny it.

And we do not always have free willGuess you are neither Calvinist nor arminian.

Yep, I'm neither of those. Predestination and free will cannot occur simultaneously.

I am a bit surprised that no non-hyper Calvinist has put forth a simple treatise of their system..

I did put up a simple theology years ago. But it has become even simpler.

Predestination - ? - Free will

What goes in the middle?

 

[cygnusx1]

When it is claimed that this point is a make/break or benchmark, finding it to be held by both sides is not something to be ignored. That one swallow topples the claim.

Just believing man cannot lose salvation doesn't make one a Calvinist .

They reach the same destination by different routes: the saved will persist.

If I visit the USA it doesn't make me American , many "visit" Calvinist Doctine and may even take some home with them , it doesn't mean they are Calvinist.

The bench mark has to be Dort where the Soteriology of Calvinism was first systematically applied.

 

[2thePoint]

Just believing man cannot lose salvation doesn't make one a Calvinist .

That's exactly the point I was making.

If I visit the USA it doesn't make me American , many "visit" Calvinist Doctine and may even take some home with them , it doesn't mean they are Calvinist.

And who is to say what does make them a Calvinist? That's the question that has not been answered, because there is no authoritative source to define it.

The bench mark has to be Dort where the Soteriology of Calvinism was first systematically applied.

Do all Calvinists agree? And how do we know that all who agree are Calvinists? This seems to be a tautology.

 

[cygnusx1]

That's exactly the point I was making.



And who is to say what does make them a Calvinist? That's the question that has not been answered, because there is no authoritative source to define it.


Do all Calvinists agree? And how do we know that all who agree are Calvinists? This seems to be a tautology.

I disagree , the authoritative source is history .

It's quite simple , First identify by historical study what Calvinism is , it is a nickname descended from the Synod of Dort .

Only then will you be able to discern what a Calvinist is and what identifies them as such .

Do all Calvinist's agree ? what a strange and misleading question !

Shall we say there is no such thing as Christians because there is a debatable authoritive source over what and who qualifies ?

Do all Christians agree ? therefore , using your own logic , there can be no Christians.

One doesn't need absolute 100% agreement to be considered a Christan anymore than one Calvinist needs to agree 100% with every other Calvinist to be a Calvinist .

What makes a Calvinist a Calvinist is what identifies them with THE CORE beliefs that are recognised historically as Calvinist Doctrine , do they adhere to a settled authoritative statement of faith , if so that makes them Calvinist .

On these very boards we have a brother who is a 4 point "Calvinist" , he is Amyraldian and by his own testimony he has described himself as an "inconsistant Calvinist" .... which has been my point all along. He certainly is no Arminian !

 

[2thePoint]

I disagree , the authoritative source is history .

It's quite simple , First identify by historical study what Calvinism is , it is a nickname descended from the Synod of Dort .

Dort has been mentioned several times in this thread. But there seems to be no consensus on how much of it is the minimum requirement to label someone a Calvinist.

Do all Calvinist's agree ? what a strange and misleading question !

Shall we say there is no such thing as Christians because there is a debatable authoritive source over what and who qualifies ?

I already mentioned this too, as evidence that there is no consensus, such that anyone who complains that Calvinism is misunderstood must first explain exactly what they personally believe.

And for the record, all the OP and subsequent comments have tried to do is get Calvinists to say what their absolute minimum core teachings are, such that anyone deviating from them is not a Calvinist, and anyone who accepts them is definitely a Calvinist. Earlier the matter of perseverance was offered as something that makes or breaks a Calvinist but I responded that many Arminians believe in it as well. So whatever this core is, it can have nothing in common with non-Calvinistic beliefs, and must be accepted by all Calvinists. And it appears that no such core exists. Your response to this is what I see as a tautology:

What makes a Calvinist a Calvinist is what identifies them with THE CORE beliefs that are recognised historically as Calvinist Doctrine , do they adhere to a settled authoritative statement of faith , if so that makes them Calvinist .

Personally, I find this article reasonable and fair to both sides, giving a general consensus. But it remains for each individual to say what they personally believe before they can complain about being misunderstood.

 

[Pinkman]

They would fall into the category of Inconsistent Calvinists .

My point remains , there are Calvinists and everyone else are by default Arminian , in the sense that one either holds to Dort or one doesn't , you cannot (prove me wrong if you can) hold to TULIP and oppose it . It's either one or the other ...

Total Depravity (man cannot seek or turn to God without God's Grace ) is either true or false , there is no middle ground .

[snip]

We either find ourselves agreeing with Dort (Calvinists) or disagreeing with Dort (Arminian)

Calvinists
Arminians
Inconsistent Calvinists (NoL)
Inconsistent Arminians (OSAS)

Hi Cygnusx1

Thanks for your post which makes it clear. Problem for me though is I hear a lot of debate about different interpretations of Total Depravity. Not so much for Limited Atonement. E.g is man created with enough grace to turn to God but not enough to save himself without assistance.

Conclusion - There are a lot of inconsistent Calvinists about.

A hard-liner once insisted that those who do not hold to TULIP have not been given grace and are not saved. I don't think I can go along with that.

 

[Pinkman]

We either find ourselves agreeing with Dort (Calvinists) or disagreeing with Dort (Arminian)

What about Catholics or Easter Orthodox, JSpark or Zeena ? Or Charismatics such as the Toronto lot ?

 

[cygnusx1]

We either find ourselves agreeing with Dort (Calvinists) or disagreeing with Dort (Arminian)

What about Catholics or Easter Orthodox, JSpark or Zeena ? Or Charismatics such as the Toronto lot ?

First identify the teachings of Dort , carefully observe there are no half measures , ie, you either accept TULIP or you don't , there is no middle ground , one may align with Arminian beliefs without even knowing it !

Conclusion , none Calvinists are by default Arminian in their soteriology even though they will almost always deny it their views either align with Dort or are opposed to Dort.

If a person is not Calvinist they are Arminian as far as soteriology goes .
The only exception are Universalists who have leanings either way !

 

[cygnusx1]

Hi Cygnusx1

Thanks for your post which makes it clear. Problem for me though is I hear a lot of debate about different interpretations of Total Depravity. Not so much for Limited Atonement. E.g is man created with enough grace to turn to God but not enough to save himself without assistance.

There is no way that one can consistently hold to Total Depravity and conclude man is able to turn to God . In fact what do we mean by "turning to God" UNLESS WE MEAN CONVERT TO HIS WAY ? which implies salvation anyway .

Conclusion - There are a lot of inconsistent Calvinists about.

maybe ,

You will find many who LIKE OSAS but deny it's very foundation and argue for man's free will to be saved but not to be lost !

A hard-liner once insisted that those who do not hold to TULIP have not been given grace and are not saved. I don't think I can go along with that.

Right doctrine by itself never saved anyone , yet bad doctrine has blinded many to the truth and caused them to oppose the Gospel .

 

[cygnusx1]

Dort has been mentioned several times in this thread. But there seems to be no consensus on how much of it is the minimum requirement to label someone a Calvinist.


I already mentioned this too, as evidence that there is no consensus, such that anyone who complains that Calvinism is misunderstood must first explain exactly what they personally believe.

And for the record, all the OP and subsequent comments have tried to do is get Calvinists to say what their absolute minimum core teachings are, such that anyone deviating from them is not a Calvinist, and anyone who accepts them is definitely a Calvinist. Earlier the matter of perseverance was offered as something that makes or breaks a Calvinist but I responded that many Arminians believe in it as well. So whatever this core is, it can have nothing in common with non-Calvinistic beliefs, and must be accepted by all Calvinists. And it appears that no such core exists. Your response to this is what I see as a tautology:



Personally, I find this article reasonable and fair to both sides, giving a general consensus. But it remains for each individual to say what they personally believe before they can complain about being misunderstood.

taking your argument to it's logical conclusions you are at a loss as to speak of any "Calvinists " being misunderstood because you cannot even identify what or whom a Calvinist is !!! Therefore any opposition to Calvinists or Calvinism cannot be in-line with your main premise. In other words , you have shot yourself in both feet.

I wonder if you think consensus is a personal matter to identify for example "species"

what makes a Spaniel a Spaniel when it differs by and by

sure there is consensus amongst thousands of Calvinists , you really need to look at their many creeds , even amongst Baptists . So now you see there is consensus where does that leave your argument ?

 

[2thePoint]

taking your argument to it's logical conclusions you are at a loss as to speak of any "Calvinists " being misunderstood because you cannot even identify what or whom a Calvinist is !!! Therefore any opposition to Calvinists or Calvinism cannot be in-line with your main premise. In other words , you have shot yourself in both feet.

What? Seriously... what are you talking about?

One last time: in order for anyone on any topic to complain that their belief is misunderstood, they have to first explain what they personally believe. That's been my argument all along, and all attempts to get a consensus in lieu of this appeal to personal belief/explanation have been met with calling the question ridiculous. This is why topics such as Calvinism, even in spite of the OP's best efforts at getting a simple question answered, are needlessly divisive. Having tried my best as well, I have little choice but to move on.