Understanding Calvinism

[heymikey80]

Are non hyper Calvinist agreed on this ?

Hypercalvinists aren't agreed on much.

Catch this, and learn it well.

At ... any ... one ... point.

Deviations from Dordt can take any number of forms. So no, hypercalvinists aren't all nor always agreed on any particular point.

Will you find hypercalvinists who think this? Sure. I have.

Also it seems to contradict the concept of Total Depravity. It says "snatched in their innocence". Surley cannot be correct. They were created totally depraved we are told many time on this forum alone.

When non Calvinist argue for the age of innocence and accountability they have always been shot down.

Are there people who think children are innocent while infants? Go ahead & ask. You'll find this to be quite a prevalent opinion among Christians.

Y'can look up Dordt just as readily as I can.

I've yet to find any position truly "shot down" in any discussion. There're people who continue to hold to an age of accountability, that's pretty obvious.

 

[heymikey80]

Originally Posted by heymikey80
Double ....reprobation is the cause of unbelief and ungodliness; that many infant children of believers are snatched in their innocence from their mothers' breasts and cruelly cast into hell so that neither the blood of Christ nor their baptism nor the prayers of the church at their baptism can be of any use to them; and very many other slanderous accusations of this kind which the Reformed churches not only disavow but even denounce with their whole heart.

I am fairly certain Calvin would disagree. Institutes book 2 Ch 1 Calvin tells us infants are odious in the sight of God and condemned UNLESS THEY ARE BAPTISED.

Read the entire sentence and report what viewpoint you think Calvin would disagree with.

 

[Pinkman]

....baptism can be of any use to them; .....
Read the entire sentence and report what viewpoint you think Calvin would disagree with.

Guess I am not understanding your point(s). Google "ENGRAVED UPON THE BODIES OF THEIR CHILDREN: CALVIN ON INFANT BAPTISM - TIM PRUSSIC" or just "calvin infant baptism". It seems to me that Calvin teaches infant baptism is very much of use to them.


What do I believe "Total Depravity" means. I think it is not simple and black and white. Here are some snippets from the institutes.

Hence, even infants bringing their condemnation with them from their mother’s womb, suffer not for another’s, but for their own defect. For although they have not yet produced the fruits of their own unrighteousness, they have the seed implanted in them.

Seems to me they have as Calvin say's "NOT yet produced fruits of there own unrighteousness. Having the seed implanted, yes BUT

..... What I can't fathom is going to a playground with a bunch of kids who are ALL a bunch of murderors, liars, thiefs, adulterors, idolaters, fornicators, horrendous sinners, and giving them anything good at all - let alone grace.

Way over the top. The subject of infants keeps arising. It pains me as well as I expect anyone who has lost an infant, child or even teenager. If an baby goes to hospital what do we do ? We pray for healing and so on do we not ?

Calvin again :-
11. We say, then, that man is corrupted by a natural viciousness, but not by one which proceeded from nature. In saying that it proceeded not from nature, we mean that it was rather an adventitious event which befell man, than a substantial property assigned to him from the beginning.

The hi-lighted bits speak for themselves.

Do all hyper Calvinist agree ? No, HeyMikey80 is quite correct I believe.

My point I was hoping to make is that Hyper Calvinism is in general much simpler. Even though Calvin calls it the terrible decree.

 

[Pinkman]

Pontificating on these posts it seems to me that to be a Calvinist as opposed to any thing else then :

1. The base line is the canons of Dordt rather that any one theologian.

2. There is difference of opinion in what Dordt says or means - which is fine IMO.

Two thoughts arise :-
1. How far can a difference of opinion mean one is no longer a Calvinist.

2. When someone/ poster does not understand Calvinism because difference, maybe it is not easy to understand.

 

[Criada]

Mod Hat On​

I cleaned up a few flamey posts several pages back.
Seems to be civil again now - thanks.
Mod Hat Off​

 

[heymikey80]

....baptism can be of any use to them; .....
Read the entire sentence and report what viewpoint you think Calvin would disagree with.

Guess I am not understanding your point(s). Google "ENGRAVED UPON THE BODIES OF THEIR CHILDREN: CALVIN ON INFANT BAPTISM - TIM PRUSSIC" or just "calvin infant baptism". It seems to me that Calvin teaches infant baptism is very much of use to them.

So does Dordt.

Hence it clearly appears that those of whom one could hardly expect it have shown no truth, equity, and charity at all in wishing to make the public believe ... that this teaching means ... that neither the blood of Christ nor their baptism nor the prayers of the church at their baptism can be of any use to them ...

Y'catch the subject of this sentence? It's not Calvinists.

 

[AndOne]

Pontificating on these posts it seems to me that to be a Calvinist as opposed to any thing else then :

1. The base line is the canons of Dordt rather that any one theologian.

2. There is difference of opinion in what Dordt says or means - which is fine IMO.

Two thoughts arise :-
1. How far can a difference of opinion mean one is no longer a Calvinist.

2. When someone/ poster does not understand Calvinism because difference, maybe it is not easy to understand.

Actually you're wrong about this. The base line is first and foremost scripture. Dordt in and of itself is based on scripture. It is a scriptural response made by a large number of men from different countries in response to many of the nonscriptural teachings of Jacob Arminius.

Regarding Dordt - its pretty easy to understand - those who try to say they have an opinion contrary to what is in Dordt aren't Calvinists. It's that simple.

I get the feeling you are trying to make Calvinists out to be cultic - in that they follow a single person or such - but the bottom line is that scripture holds final authority for Calvinists. Though I love Calvin's works and have enjoyed reading many of his writings over the years I don't agree with him on everything. For example - I disagree with him on padeobaptism. I personally do not find it in scripture or scriptural. Since scripture is my final authority I gladly part ways with Calvin on that issue. I use this example to simply show that if I just blindly followed John Calvin then I would also be padeobaptist.

 

[heymikey80]

By the same token I think Calvin far overreached on the elimination of instruments in musical worship. It may have been a useful temporary measure to knock back the overemphasis on form, as Zwingli demonstrated -- but eliminating instruments is not a Scriptural viewpoint.

 

[cygnusx1]

A Basic summary of Hyper Calvinist thought is the refusal to preach the Gospel to all men {without discrimination } , the Hyper Calvinist insists the Gospel is not for all men in this they separate themselves decisively from Calvinists entirely.

 

[AndOne]

By the same token I think Calvin far overreached on the elimination of instruments in musical worship. It may have been a useful temporary measure to knock back the overemphasis on form, as Zwingli demonstrated -- but eliminating instruments is not a Scriptural viewpoint.

I agree with this as well. Another example of a Calvinist not blindly following Calvin...

 

[Pinkman]

The Calvinism Debate
4. IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT CALVINISM IS AN UNSETTLED THEOLOGY. Calvinists are seriously divided among themselves and always have been. There is Supralapsarianism vs. Sublapsarianism vs. Infralapsarianism. “The Supralapsarians hold that God decreed the fall of Adam; the Sublapsarians, that he permitted it” (McClintock & Strong). The Calvinists at the Synod of Dort were divided on many issues, including lapsarianism. The Swiss Calvinists who wrote the Helvetic Consensus Formula in 1675 were in conflict with the French Calvinists of the School of Saumur. There are Strict Calvinists and Moderate Calvinists, Hyper and non-Hyper (differing especially on reprobation and the extent of the atonement and whether God loves all men), 5 pointers, 4 pointers, 3 pointers, 2 pointers. In America Calvinists were divided into Old School and the New School. As we have seen, the Calvinists of England were divided in the 19th century.

Whenever, therefore, one tries to state TULIP theology and then refute it, there are Calvinists who will argue with you that you are misrepresenting Calvinism. It is not so much that you are misrepresenting Calvinism, though. You might be quoting directly from various Calvinists or even from Calvin himself. The problem is that you are misrepresenting THEIR Calvinism! There are Calvin Calvinists and Andrew Fuller Calvinists and Arthur W. Pink Calvinists and Presbyterian Calvinists and Baptist Calvinists and many other sorts of Calvinists. Many Calvinists have never read Calvin’s Institutes of Christian Religion for themselves. They are merely following someone who follows someone who allegedly follows Calvin (who, by his own admission, followed Augustine).

Calvinists believe that they have the right to reject or modify some parts of, or conclusions of Calvin. I agree with them 100%, and I say, further, that we also have the right to reject the entire thing if we are convinced that it is not supported by Scripture!


I'd be interested in all of your views.

 

[heymikey80]

The Calvinism Debate
4. IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT CALVINISM IS AN UNSETTLED THEOLOGY.

I'd be interested in all of your views.

It's important to understand that every theology is an unsettled theology. That's no complaint about Calvinism. That's a complaint about the science of theology.

Reformed theology is a reforming theology. However, it perceives certain issues as clearly settled, presenting those issues as settled. Foreordination, justification by faith alone, these are two items that Reformed theology considers settled.

What Reformed theology also considers settled are the Five Points of Calvinism. They're essentially responses to Five Points of the Remonstrance. They weren't developed when the TULIP acronym was developed.

Someone attempting to represent Calvinism should first attempt to represent it in distinction from what it's not: Arminianism, and hypercalvinism. Then at least they'll have some smidgeon of recognition as to what Calvinism is: a reformation away from semi-Pelagianism while keeping apart from philosophical fatalism to represent the Scriptural view accurately.

For the record, most of my initial training was from Baptist and Wesleyan mentors. The trouble was, every engagement when it came to the Calvinistically inclined Scriptures seemed to be compromise away from what the writer meant. With clarity it seemed Scripture attributed to both views -- God's power & control, and human choices form their own wills -- it attributed to both of them, the truth.

Then when I stripped off the anti-Calvinist rhetoric, I found Calvinism also attributed to both views, the truth. The net result was that I discovered Calvinism standing where I saw Scripture was.

 

[AndOne]

Many Calvinists have never read Calvin’s Institutes of Christian Religion for themselves. They are merely following someone who follows someone who allegedly follows Calvin (who, by his own admission, followed Augustine).

I disagree with the statement above. I think most Calvinists have read the Institutes and that most come to the same conclusions of Dordt (TULIP) when they test it against scripture. There is no denying the doctrines of grace as being scriptural if one looks at scripture honestly and openly.

As someone who has read many of Calvin's works - including the Institutes on more than one occasion - I can tell you that Calvin had many disagreements with Augustine as well.

I must say that it is my experience that those who can't reckon TULIP with scripture do so because of the very reasons Calvinists are accused of in the quote above. They do so because they blindly follow someone who is a synergist or tradition - or both.

That's my view.

 

[cygnusx1]

The Calvinism Debate
4. IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT CALVINISM IS AN UNSETTLED THEOLOGY. Calvinists are seriously divided among themselves and always have been. There is Supralapsarianism vs. Sublapsarianism vs. Infralapsarianism. “The Supralapsarians hold that God decreed the fall of Adam; the Sublapsarians, that he permitted it” (McClintock & Strong). The Calvinists at the Synod of Dort were divided on many issues, including lapsarianism. The Swiss Calvinists who wrote the Helvetic Consensus Formula in 1675 were in conflict with the French Calvinists of the School of Saumur. There are Strict Calvinists and Moderate Calvinists, Hyper and non-Hyper (differing especially on reprobation and the extent of the atonement and whether God loves all men), 5 pointers, 4 pointers, 3 pointers, 2 pointers. In America Calvinists were divided into Old School and the New School. As we have seen, the Calvinists of England were divided in the 19th century.

Whenever, therefore, one tries to state TULIP theology and then refute it, there are Calvinists who will argue with you that you are misrepresenting Calvinism. It is not so much that you are misrepresenting Calvinism, though. You might be quoting directly from various Calvinists or even from Calvin himself. The problem is that you are misrepresenting THEIR Calvinism! There are Calvin Calvinists and Andrew Fuller Calvinists and Arthur W. Pink Calvinists and Presbyterian Calvinists and Baptist Calvinists and many other sorts of Calvinists. Many Calvinists have never read Calvin’s Institutes of Christian Religion for themselves. They are merely following someone who follows someone who allegedly follows Calvin (who, by his own admission, followed Augustine).

Calvinists believe that they have the right to reject or modify some parts of, or conclusions of Calvin. I agree with them 100%, and I say, further, that we also have the right to reject the entire thing if we are convinced that it is not supported by Scripture!


I'd be interested in all of your views.

looks like a page from Hunt's book .

Using this same argument there is simply no way you can hold to a Christian testimony , for there are hundreds of Christian denominations , FACT !

Hence the logical deduction is that Christianity (using this same paradigm above ) cannot be defended against those who also have "the right " taken from the example above to reject it .

The observant open minded Agnostic/Atheist/Unbeliever can only conclude ;

"Whenever, therefore, one tries to EXAMINE CHRISTIANITY and then refute it, there are Christians who will argue with you that you are misrepresenting Christianity. It is not so much that you are misrepresenting Christianity, though. You might be quoting directly from various Christians or even from Christ himself. The problem is that you are misrepresenting THEIR Christianity!

Thus a Christian Epistemology is nullified .

 

[Pinkman]

Someone attempting to represent Calvinism should first attempt to represent it in distinction from what it's not:

Sounds good to me and no I am not trying to make Calvinism look cultic. Merely expose (Expose positivity that is) it and make it more comprehensible. Hence the title of the thread.

I've been away for 1/2 an hour and I find the moderator has been to delete a load of flames. Knockout. I guess they were aimed at myself. Is it wrong to ask tough questions !!!. Can't you handle it ?

Listen up. In my youth I came from a divided provence. Bricks and petrol bombs were thrown by two side who HATED each other. When questioned why are we doing this it was because we hated the other side. Why ? because they hated us. Why ? UMMM, UMMMM. don't know. It fact it was the environment we were in.We as kids on both side were brought up to hate each other. Now, decades older and with members of my family now married to the other side. Out of the hate environment we look back in horror. How ignorant we were. Anybody witnessed a bomb planted in a pub. Really messy. I learnt not to hate the hard way.

This is just a debate, asking valid questions... Beggars belief.

 

[heymikey80]

Someone attempting to represent Calvinism should first attempt to represent it in distinction from what it's not:

Sounds good to me and no I am not trying to make Calvinism look cultic. Merely expose (Expose positivity that is) it and make it more comprehensible. Hence the title of the thread.

I'm wondering why the same kind of argument is brought, but maybe that's because I see a pattern from here that's obvious to me, but not to anyone else.

I've been away for 1/2 an hour and I find the moderator has been to delete a load of flames. Knockout. I guess they were aimed at myself. Is it wrong to ask tough questions !!!. Can't you handle it ?

I believe what you have just performed is a flame.

I've been watching this thread about every ten minutes or so, and not noticed anything being deleted.

A number of flames have been removed from much earlier in the thread.

Listen up. In my youth I came from a divided provence. Bricks and petrol bombs were thrown by two side who HATED each other. When questioned why are we doing this it was because we hated the other side. Why ? because they hated us. Why ? UMMM, UMMMM. don't know. It fact it was the environment we were in.We as kids on both side were brought up to hate each other. Now, decades older and with members of my family now married to the other side. Out of the hate environment we look back in horror. How ignorant we were. Anybody witnessed a bomb planted in a pub. Really messy. I learnt not to hate the hard way.

This is just a debate, asking valid questions... Beggars belief.

This division is merely a war of words and dislike across the Pond. We're entirely aware of one anothers' views. We've discovered the extent to which error can be tolerated when reason is left free to defend the truth. In fact, I'm emerged from the opposite side, through frank and open Methodist discussions to establish my view among others -- most of them Wesleyans or even further down the libertarian track. Libertarianism is the representative viewpoint in the US. In general religious people in the US are simply Pelagians. They don't think much further than that.

So I am truly a Methodist, and also a Calvinist and a Presbyterian. I'm annoyed when Calvinists attempt to suppress discussion, and I'm equally annoyed when Methodists attempt to rationalize-away what Scripture says. And vice versa. And anything that is an attempt to back off from the truth. The truth is what we're looking for.

I've been watching this thread pretty regularly. Maybe something came through while I was away. But I haven't seen it.

 

[AndOne]

Always asking questions - but never answering any... That's not what I call debate.

 

[heymikey80]

Always asking questions - but never answering any... That's not what I call debate.

Well, I feel I should answer one unspoken question right now.

No, the answer is not compromise or arbitration or dilution. That is simply assimilation.

Nor is the answer walling ourselves into one theology and refusing to exit. That is simply blind rejection.

The answer is redemption -- the heart & soul, the core of Christianity. It is neither compromise nor separation.

 

[AndOne]

Well, I feel I should answer one unspoken question right now.

No, the answer is not compromise or arbitration or dilution. That is simply assimilation.

Nor is the answer walling ourselves into one theology and refusing to exit. That is simply blind rejection.

The answer is redemption -- the heart & soul, the core of Christianity. It is neither compromise nor separation.

well said brother...

 

[nobdysfool]

By the same token I think Calvin far overreached on the elimination of instruments in musical worship. It may have been a useful temporary measure to knock back the overemphasis on form, as Zwingli demonstrated -- but eliminating instruments is not a Scriptural viewpoint.

I have to agree with you on that one, Mikey. Given that the Psalms were often accompanied by musical instruments (and many were written on them), I see no warrant for a New Testament view which condemns them. If the early church did not use them it was most likely because either they did not possess them, and due to persecution, instruments would have drawn undue attention. That some ascetics and gnostic-leaning individuals later codified and canonized such lack of musical accompaniment does not rise to the level of inspired revelation.

And, in the interest of full disclosure, I am a musician.