What type of Christian ["Calvinist"] are you?

[Hupomone10]

Seeing that this site was deleted, I figured I'd post this here for reference, I don't know if it helps anyone understand our differences... but perhaps it will. If at all possible could someone sticky this to make it easier for everyone? If not, I understand, it's not THAT important. Also, I didn't find this, someone else posted it several months ago (if not a year ago), so credit to this does not go to me in no-wise. The title was originally, "What type of Calvinist are you?" However, seeing as it included American Baptists, Lutherans, Arminians, I figure the title is better deserved, "What type of Christian are you?" I say this in case you are in search of the original.

What type of Christian are you?

1. Hyper-Calvinism: Beliefs: God is the author of sin and man has no responsibility before God. The Gospel should only preached to the elect. i.e. duty faith. and anti-missionary Belief in the five points is a prerequisite for true salvation, also known as Neo-Gnostic Calvinism.
Proponents: Joseph Hussey John Skepp and some English primitive Baptists.

2. Ultra High Calvinism: Beliefs: That the elect are in some sense eternally justified. A denial of: The Well– Meant Offer; Common Grace; and God having any love for the non-elect.
Proponents: John Gill, some ministers in the Protestant Reformed Church of America

3. High Calvinism: Beliefs: That God in no sense desires to save the reprobate, Most deny the Well-Meant Offer. Supralapsarian viewing God’s decrees. All hold to limited atonement. Most believe in particular grace and see the atonement as sufficient only for the elect.
Proponents: Theodore Beza, Gordon Clark, Arthur Pink

4. Moderate Calvinism: Beliefs: That God does in some sense desires to save the reprobate, Infralapsarian in viewing God’s decrees. Affirms Common Grace.
Proponents: John Calvin (some argue that he was a High-Calvinist), John Murray, RL Dabney

5. Low Calvinism: Beliefs: That Christ died for all in a legal sense, so one can speak of Christ dying for the non-elect. That God has two distinct wills. Affirms the Well-Meant Offer and Common Grace.
Proponents: Amyraldrians , RT Kendal

6. Lutheranism: Beliefs: That Calvinist over emphasize God Sovereignty over man’s responsibility. That Christ died for all in legal sense, that some are predestined on to life but none are predestined onto death. That the sacraments are means of grace regardless of one’s faith. Proponents: Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, Rod Rosenbladt

7. American Baptist: Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. Once a persons believes the gospel, he is eternally secure. Rejects Calvinism, some would even call it heretical. Proponents: Jerry Falwell, Adrian Rogers

8. Arminianism Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is solely based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. A person can fall from the state of grace i.e. lose ones salvation, since it is our free will that chooses Christ at conversion.
Proponents: Jacob Arminius, John Wesley some Methodists​

This above list was posted by DD2008 at the following thread, post #145.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7489495-15/

Does anyone know if Arminians split themselves up into 5 or so flavors the way Calvinists do?

Here's an interesting quote from Charles Spurgeon on that same thread, from you, Mike, I believe:

"The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one “of whom the world was not worthy.” I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths [Doctrines of Grace], or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven."
Source: Spurgeon on Universal Atonement, John Wesley, and George Whitefield | David Westerfield > Weblog

It is interesting both for Spurgeon's acceptance of Wesley's and other Arminians' faith as legitimate, and because he refers to those saved as having "received Christ as their Saviour."

"There is something to be believed, and someOne to be received", as the late evangelist Paul Little put it.

 

[Hupomone10]

Here's another way the groups within the calvinist community can be differentiated:

3 recognized systems for the logical order of God’s decrees regarding salvation:

Supralapsarianism
1. The decree to save (elect) some and reprobate others.
2. The decree to create both the elect and the reprobate.
3. The decree to permit the fall of both the elect and the reprobate.
4. The decree to provide salvation only for the elect.

Infralapsarianism
1. The decree to create human beings.
2. The decree to permit the fall.
3. The decree to elect some and reprobate others.
4. The decree to provide salvation only for the elect.

Sublapsarianism
1. The decree to create human beings.
2. The decree to permit the fall.
3. The decree to provide salvation sufficient for all.
4. The decree to save some and reprobate others.

- "Systematic Theology", A. H. Strong
- "Christian Theology", Millard J. Erickson. P. 842, 843, 846

 

[the particular baptist]

"The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one “of whom the world was not worthy.” I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths [Doctrines of Grace], or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven."
Source: Spurgeon on Universal Atonement, John Wesley, and George Whitefield | David Westerfield > Weblog

Spurgeon was wrong, and was compromiser.

 

[AndOne]

Seeing that this site was deleted, I figured I'd post this here for reference, I don't know if it helps anyone understand our differences... but perhaps it will. If at all possible could someone sticky this to make it easier for everyone? If not, I understand, it's not THAT important. Also, I didn't find this, someone else posted it several months ago (if not a year ago), so credit to this does not go to me in no-wise. The title was originally, "What type of Calvinist are you?" However, seeing as it included American Baptists, Lutherans, Arminians, I figure the title is better deserved, "What type of Christian are you?" I say this in case you are in search of the original.

What type of Christian are you?

1. Hyper-Calvinism: Beliefs: God is the author of sin and man has no responsibility before God. The Gospel should only preached to the elect. i.e. duty faith. and anti-missionary Belief in the five points is a prerequisite for true salvation, also known as Neo-Gnostic Calvinism.
Proponents: Joseph Hussey John Skepp and some English primitive Baptists.

2. Ultra High Calvinism: Beliefs: That the elect are in some sense eternally justified. A denial of: The Well– Meant Offer; Common Grace; and God having any love for the non-elect.
Proponents: John Gill, some ministers in the Protestant Reformed Church of America

3. High Calvinism: Beliefs: That God in no sense desires to save the reprobate, Most deny the Well-Meant Offer. Supralapsarian viewing God’s decrees. All hold to limited atonement. Most believe in particular grace and see the atonement as sufficient only for the elect.
Proponents: Theodore Beza, Gordon Clark, Arthur Pink

4. Moderate Calvinism: Beliefs: That God does in some sense desires to save the reprobate, Infralapsarian in viewing God’s decrees. Affirms Common Grace.
Proponents: John Calvin (some argue that he was a High-Calvinist), John Murray, RL Dabney

5. Low Calvinism: Beliefs: That Christ died for all in a legal sense, so one can speak of Christ dying for the non-elect. That God has two distinct wills. Affirms the Well-Meant Offer and Common Grace.
Proponents: Amyraldrians , RT Kendal

6. Lutheranism: Beliefs: That Calvinist over emphasize God Sovereignty over man’s responsibility. That Christ died for all in legal sense, that some are predestined on to life but none are predestined onto death. That the sacraments are means of grace regardless of one’s faith. Proponents: Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, Rod Rosenbladt

7. American Baptist: Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. Once a persons believes the gospel, he is eternally secure. Rejects Calvinism, some would even call it heretical. Proponents: Jerry Falwell, Adrian Rogers

8. Arminianism Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is solely based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. A person can fall from the state of grace i.e. lose ones salvation, since it is our free will that chooses Christ at conversion.
Proponents: Jacob Arminius, John Wesley some Methodists
​

I believe in the canons of dort - that is what defines a calvinist. That is why I call myself calvinist.

 

[Hupomone10]

Spurgeon was wrong, and was compromiser.

So if I understand you correctly, was there never a time in your life when you received Christ as your Savior and Lord? Keeping in mind that receiving Christ is the same as believing in Christ, believing on Christ.

John 1:12
"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,"

I think Spurgeon had it right, and John of course.

 

[faceofbear]

This above list was posted by DD2008 at the following thread, post #145.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7489495-15/

Does anyone know if Arminians split themselves up into 5 or so flavors the way Calvinists do?

Here's an interesting quote from Charles Spurgeon on that same thread, from you, Mike, I believe:

"The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one “of whom the world was not worthy.” I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths [Doctrines of Grace], or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven."
Source: Spurgeon on Universal Atonement, John Wesley, and George Whitefield | David Westerfield > Weblog

It is interesting both for Spurgeon's acceptance of Wesley's and other Arminians' faith as legitimate, and because he refers to those saved as having "received Christ as their Saviour."

"There is something to be believed, and someOne to be received", as the late evangelist Paul Little put it.

Bill,

That is a quote from me, I believe, as I was referencing it in a thread as of recently.

Thanks for posting this, I was wondering where it came from, haha. Where is DD anyways?

 

[faceofbear]

C.H. Spurgeon:

Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they say, “It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all men; it commends itself,” they say, “to the instincts of humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty.” I admit there is, but beauty may be often associated with falsehood. There is much which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption, but I will just show what the supposition necessarily involves. If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who had been cast away because of their sins.
Once again, if it was Christ’s intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice.

That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!

There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer—I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley.

The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one “of whom the world was not worthy.” I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths [Doctrines of Grace], or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven.​

Source: Spurgeon on Universal Atonement, John Wesley, and George Whitefield – David Westerfield > Weblog

This was my quote from that thread.

 

[the particular baptist]

So if I understand you correctly, was there never a time in your life when you received Christ as your Savior and Lord?

There was a time in my life when i made a profession of faith and was baptized. The preachers i believe today to be lost. Religious presumption and an ignorance of the gospel of Christ according to the scriptures. I walked out of the church service just as lost as i walked in, but i thought i was a christian. It was presumption nothing more for i did not love God and hated in practice and mind everything He stood for, but bless god i was in church every sunday.

Fast forward 20 years. I was alone when Christ invaded my heart and set His throne in my heart. He didnt ask pretty please can i come in in hopes my mighty free will wouldnt turn Him down. I have been His ever since. I am in His grip.

Religions make disciples to religion. God makes His own disciples without the aid of religion and man made methodologies. He dwells in the hearts of His people. Christ in me the hope of glory.

 

[Hupomone10]

There was a time in my life when i made a profession of faith and was baptized. The preachers i believe today to be lost. Religious presumption and an ignorance of the gospel of Christ according to the scriptures.

Thank you for your honesty, even if mixed with shots over the bow aimed at those preachers of the past. This is what I have come to suspect from persons such as yourself that are on these threads, that regardless of what they are allowed to say openly, behind closed doors they secretly believe anyone like me has embraced a false gospel, merely because I believed on Christ, received Him as John 1:12 says, and called it "accepting Christ." This is what I suspect got mlqurgw, a previous post-er, in trouble months ago, the fact that he said openly what many believe privately - all but 5-point calvinists are lost.

Fast forward 20 years. I was alone when Christ invaded my heart and set His throne in my heart. He didnt ask pretty please can i come in in hopes my mighty free will wouldnt turn Him down. I have been His ever since. I am in His grip.

Similarly, there was a time when Christ came on the scene in my life, invaded my life so to speak.

I was content to be a party-er and drunk, but recently growing discontent with that. God sent a young man down the beach where I was, drinking and looking for women, with a cross around his neck. My buddy said, "look there, there's another one of those Christian hypocrites - here drinking with us and wearing a cross around his neck. Being the candid person I am, I decided I was going to ask him what that cross meant to him.

I did. It was not as I supposed. He had recently been saved and without a church background (lucky for me) he continued to drink, even with other drunks, just not get drunk. He told me of his recent conversion and faith in Christ. Then he asked me what I believe. I told him, "yes, I know and believe Christ lived and died for my sins and is the Son of God, and I know God is real, but I'm going to hell, just look at the way I live." He said, "no, if you believe then you're going to heaven! " and he smiled at me as he looked and said that. I didn't think he was right, but if there was a chance he was, I didn't want to go in the condition I was in.

The fact is, he was probably wrong. But what that did in me was interesting. From then on for the next month, I once again reflected on God and His Son as the days went on, not really knowing the answer to the question asked by the jailer in Acts 16:30 "what must I do to be saved?" and not really knowing how to handle what had happened.

Shortly after that I met a woman in whose life the life of Christ was so obvious that I came to the unarguable conclusion that Christ was real, for it was the only explanation for her unconditional love to us, a bunch of drunk sailors in a navy town. He was real, for He was obviously living in her. And if he was real, then it was all true. He really lived, He really died on the Cross, He really was raised from the dead, and it was all true. I was ready then. He had broken down my former resistance and faulty thinking.

Soon after that, upon reading a passage in a book that explained that our salvation was accomplished by the finished work of Christ, that it left nothing to be done, I then and there made the decision to quit relying on Self to save myself and put total faith in Christ and His finished work dying for my sins and paying my penalty. I told Him so in prayer.

There have been setbacks, but I have never once looked at Christ as anything other than my Savior and Lord, even when my actions didn't show it; and I found that the One that saved me from my sins could also deliver me from any sinful stronghold in life. The One who saved me from the penalty of sins deliver me from the power of sin.

For what it's worth, whether it's admitted or not, when Christ invaded your heart, i.e., came into your life, if you are a follower of Christ and not a reprobate, you made a conscious decision to believe in Him and follow Him, for a direction cannot be taken without the brain making a decision of will from which the subsequent actions follow. Just like the decision to make this post, just like the decision to believe in limited atonement and unconditional election. For what it's worth. All the rest is just semantics, IMHO.

As a footnote, I would appreciate it if you could show me examples from scripture where Christ "invaded" someone's life apart from their will being in agreement. I learned long ago that it is the enemy who invades against one's will, hence all the bodily manifestations such as barking like a dog, rolling in the floor, falling backwards like lightning struck them, that occur not only in occultic practices, but in the branch of the Charismatic movement embracing phenomena like the Toronto Blessing. So, I am curious to know the examples from scripture of such.

Blessings,
H.

 

[the particular baptist]

Thank you for your honesty, even if mixed with shots over the bow aimed at those preachers of the past....merely because I believed on Christ, received Him as John 1:12 says, and called it "accepting Christ." ... Similarly, there was a time when Christ came on the scene in my life, invaded my life so to speak.

Thanks for the reply. Consider this following quote by J.C. Philpot on "receiving Christ" (1802-1869) (baptist preacher and pastor),

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to those who believe on his name." John 1:12

"Wherever faith is given to the soul to "receive" Christ, there will be mingled with this faith, and blessedly accompanying it, love to the Lord of life and glory; and sometimes we may know the existence of faith when we cannot see it, by discerning the secret workings and actings of love towards that Savior, in whom God has enabled us to believe. There will be, from time to time, in living souls a flowing forth of affection towards Jesus. From time to time, he gives the soul a glimpse of his Person; he shows himself, as the Scripture speaks, "through the lattice;" passing perhaps hastily by, but giving such a transient glimpse of the beauty of his Person, the excellency of his finished work, dying love, and atoning blood as ravishes the heart, and secretly draws forth every affection of the soul, so that there is a following hard after him, and a going out of the desires of the soul towards him. Thus, sometimes as we lie upon our bed, as we are engaged in our business, as we are occupied in our several pursuits of life; or at other times under the word, or reading the Scripture, the Lord is pleased secretly to work in the heart, and there is a melting down at the feet of Jesus, or a secret, soft, gentle going forth of love and affection towards him, whereby the soul prefers him before thousands of gold and silver, and desires nothing so much as the inward manifestations of his love, grace, and blood.

And thus a living soul "receives" Christ; not merely as driven by necessity, but as also drawn by affection. He does not receive Christ, merely as a way of escape from "the wrath to come," merely as a something to save the soul from "the worm that dies not, and the fire that is not quenched;" but mingled with necessity, sweetly and powerfully combined with it, and intimately and intricately working with it, there is the flowing forth of genuine affection and sincere love, that goes out to him as the only object worthy our heart's affection, our spirit's worship, and our soul's desire. And we cannot say that less than this comes up to the meaning of the Scripture expression--"to receive Christ."

...all but 5-point calvinists are lost.

Calvinism is not the gospel, i rarely even use the term anymore. There will be as many 5 pointers in hell as any freewillers. The gospel is the Person and Work of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:3-4), according to the Scriptures. Mental ascent to any doctrine is not salvation.

For what it's worth, whether it's admitted or not, when Christ invaded your heart, i.e., came into your life, if you are a follower of Christ and not a reprobate, you made a conscious decision to believe in Him and follow Him, for a direction cannot be taken without the brain making a decision of will from which the subsequent actions follow. Just like the decision to make this post, just like the decision to believe in limited atonement and unconditional election. For what it's worth. All the rest is just semantics, IMHO.

Herein lies the crux of the matter. Please do not presume on what i did. I did not make a conscious decision to follow Christ. I was made willing to follow Christ. In my mind and practice i hated God while at the same time called myself a christian because a couple decades ago i repeated the sinners prayer and some fool of a preacher who should have spent more time reading his bible declared me saved and said if i ever doubted to look at the date in my bible. Fool. Blind leading the blind.

I was alone...Christ revealed Himself in me and said you're mine. I was arrested. He made me His possession. I love Him because He first loved me. Thats it. Since then the gospel is my very life and love to read it, hear it, sing it. I am not my own, i was purchased. If people in hell were purchased the love of God means nothing. The fact is God loved His people before the worlds were made, He loved the world (the world of the gentiles not just jews) that He gave His Son as a ransom for them. The gospel according to the scriptures is the power of God unto salvation to them that believe.

in His grip,
flavio

 

[the particular baptist]

As a footnote, I would appreciate it if you could show me examples from scripture where Christ "invaded" someone's life

Are you serious ? Paul ? Moses ? David, Samuel ? Lydia ? Jacob ? Abraham ? Good grief scriptures are full of such examples. By grace are you saved through faith...IT is the gift of God so that no man can boast. IT is all of it. The grace, the faith, salvation...all of it. No man in heaven can say i was smarter than my neighbor, i made the right decision etc.

 

[Marcus Constantine]

On your chart it is called "American Baptist." I think it is actually an offshoot of Amyraldianism and not really "American" - it allows for the sovereignty of God (as taught in Scripture), the responsibility of man (as taught in Scripture), and the security of the believer (as taught in Scripture).

 

[Scottish Knight]

Seeing that this site was deleted, I figured I'd post this here for reference, I don't know if it helps anyone understand our differences... but perhaps it will. If at all possible could someone sticky this to make it easier for everyone? If not, I understand, it's not THAT important. Also, I didn't find this, someone else posted it several months ago (if not a year ago), so credit to this does not go to me in no-wise. The title was originally, "What type of Calvinist are you?" However, seeing as it included American Baptists, Lutherans, Arminians, I figure the title is better deserved, "What type of Christian are you?" I say this in case you are in search of the original.

What type of Christian are you?

1. Hyper-Calvinism: Beliefs: God is the author of sin and man has no responsibility before God. The Gospel should only preached to the elect. i.e. duty faith. and anti-missionary Belief in the five points is a prerequisite for true salvation, also known as Neo-Gnostic Calvinism.
Proponents: Joseph Hussey John Skepp and some English primitive Baptists.

2. Ultra High Calvinism: Beliefs: That the elect are in some sense eternally justified. A denial of: The Well– Meant Offer; Common Grace; and God having any love for the non-elect.
Proponents: John Gill, some ministers in the Protestant Reformed Church of America

3. High Calvinism: Beliefs: That God in no sense desires to save the reprobate, Most deny the Well-Meant Offer. Supralapsarian viewing God’s decrees. All hold to limited atonement. Most believe in particular grace and see the atonement as sufficient only for the elect.
Proponents: Theodore Beza, Gordon Clark, Arthur Pink

4. Moderate Calvinism: Beliefs: That God does in some sense desires to save the reprobate, Infralapsarian in viewing God’s decrees. Affirms Common Grace.
Proponents: John Calvin (some argue that he was a High-Calvinist), John Murray, RL Dabney

5. Low Calvinism: Beliefs: That Christ died for all in a legal sense, so one can speak of Christ dying for the non-elect. That God has two distinct wills. Affirms the Well-Meant Offer and Common Grace.
Proponents: Amyraldrians , RT Kendal

6. Lutheranism: Beliefs: That Calvinist over emphasize God Sovereignty over man’s responsibility. That Christ died for all in legal sense, that some are predestined on to life but none are predestined onto death. That the sacraments are means of grace regardless of one’s faith. Proponents: Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, Rod Rosenbladt

7. American Baptist: Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. Once a persons believes the gospel, he is eternally secure. Rejects Calvinism, some would even call it heretical. Proponents: Jerry Falwell, Adrian Rogers

8. Arminianism Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is solely based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. A person can fall from the state of grace i.e. lose ones salvation, since it is our free will that chooses Christ at conversion.
Proponents: Jacob Arminius, John Wesley some Methodists
​

Moderate calvinism best fits my beliefs

 

[JM]

The chart has been linked on my blog for a while now and DD has posted it all over the net. On CF alone it's been posted over a dozen times.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7490195/

Calvinism Chart | Feileadh Mor

 

[JM]

Strict Baptist. I agree with Gill, Brine, Crisp, Huntington, Gadsby, Warburton, Philpot, Tiptaft, Kershaw, Popham, Gosden, Fortner, and in general the Gospel Standard Baptists.

Me to.

 

[56Bluesman]

I guess I fall somewhere between Lutheranism and the American Baptist categories. I've also grown weary of the endless debates and squabbles between the various camps in regards to Calvinism. My Dad became a bit of a hyper calvinist, to even be a pastor at an independent Reformed church for awhile. I got tired real quick of his probing me as to where I was riding on the T.U.L.I.P. train. I love him dearly, but I'm redeemed in Christ, not Calvinism.

 

[98cwitr]

3

lost me at 4 "That God does in some sense desires to save the reprobate" <---Dont think so.

 

[OzSpen]

Hupomone,

http://www.christianforums.com/t7489495-15/
Does anyone know if Arminians split themselves up into 5 or so flavors the way Calvinists do?

I'd recommend a read of J Matthew Pinson (gen ed) 2002. Four Views on Eternal Security.Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

In it you will find the issue of eternal security debated. Two forms of Calvinism presented: Classical Calvinism (Michael Horton) and Moderate Calvinism (Norman Geisler). There are two Arminian positions presented: Reformed Arminianism (Stephen M Ashby) and Wesleyan Arminianism (J Steven Harper).

What makes this book particularly interesting is that there is a presentation by the individual supporting a given view and then the other 3 respond. That happens for all 4 articles.

In my views on eternal security, I support the Reformed/Classical Arminian view. The essence of eternal security for the Reformed Arminian is that Christians can only fall away if they commit apostasy from the faith.

John Wesley saw two ways in which a person could fall from the grace of salvation and they were by: (1) Unconfessed sin, and (2) the actual expression of apostasy (Harper, p. 239). Arminius saw it happening only through apostasy - those who repudiate their faith.

Is there any remedy for somebody who has lost his/her salvation? Wesleyan Arminians say, yes, as long as one repents each time. The Reformed Arminians say, No, because one's salvation is secure as long as one remains in Christ by faith. However, on the basis of passages such as Hebrews 6:4-6, the Reformed Arminian concludes that "it is impossible to restore again to repentance" (v. 4) those who have committed apostasy.

So, there are two broad differences among Arminians: Reformed Arminians vs. Wesleyan Arminians.

In Christ, Oz

 

[Hupomone10]

Thanks for the reply. Consider this following quote by J.C. Philpot on "receiving Christ" (1802-1869) (baptist preacher and pastor),
...
And thus a living soul "receives" Christ; not merely as driven by necessity, but as also drawn by affection. He does not receive Christ, merely as a way of escape from "the wrath to come," merely as a something to save the soul from "the worm that dies not, and the fire that is not quenched;" but mingled with necessity, sweetly and powerfully combined with it, and intimately and intricately working with it, there is the flowing forth of genuine affection and sincere love, that goes out to him as the only object worthy our heart's affection, our spirit's worship, and our soul's desire. And we cannot say that less than this comes up to the meaning of the Scripture expression--"to receive Christ."

It sounds like he is merely trying to get around the term by making it say more than those who say it merely means to receive Christ.

Herein lies the crux of the matter. Please do not presume on what i did. I did not make a conscious decision to follow Christ. I was made willing to follow Christ.

I knew you did, I think we're just playing a semantics game here, and I was curious at why you felt the need to do so, i.e. by explaining your conversion as Christ invading your heart and setting up His throne. If you were made willing, then you became willing. If you were "willing", you then made a decision of the will. Otherwise the words are meaningless. That's really all I was saying; and that's all anyone who uses the phrase "decision for Christ" or "choose to believe in Christ" means. Nothing more. They are not trying to work their way into heaven. You have confirmed rather than denied that you made a decision.

I was alone...Christ revealed Himself in me and said you're mine. I was arrested.

This is very similar to my own testimony in which Jesus revealed Himself to me and said "I love you." I know scriptures that say objective statements that would lead to the logical conclusion that He loved me. Do you know objective statements in scripture that would lead you to a logical conclusion that "You're mine"? or is it a subjective assumption based on the feeling you had at the time? Either way, if you believed, you are saved. But I don't see the Lord using a still small voice telling the person "you're already mine" in order for them to believe, anywhere taught in scripture. That it seems, is a very subjective assumption with no scriptural backing IMHO. But you're not alone. Some here believe that they were saved when God "revealed" to them that they were one of the elect. That is not the gospel, IMHO; and "you're mine" is not the gospel, IMHO, nor can it be supported from scripture as the core of the gospel.

 

[Hupomone10]

Hupomone,

I'd recommend a read of J Matthew Pinson (gen ed) 2002. Four Views on Eternal Security.Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

In it you will find the issue of eternal security debated. Two forms of Calvinism presented: Classical Calvinism (Michael Horton) and Moderate Calvinism (Norman Geisler). There are two Arminian positions presented: Reformed Arminianism (Stephen M Ashby) and Wesleyan Arminianism (J Steven Harper).

What makes this book particularly interesting is that there is a presentation by the individual supporting a given view and then the other 3 respond. That happens for all 4 articles.

In my views on eternal security, I support the Reformed/Classical Arminian view. The essence of eternal security for the Reformed Arminian is that Christians can only fall away if they commit apostasy from the faith.

John Wesley saw two ways in which a person could fall from the grace of salvation and they were by: (1) Unconfessed sin, and (2) the actual expression of apostasy (Harper, p. 239). Arminius saw it happening only through apostasy - those who repudiate their faith.

Is there any remedy for somebody who has lost his/her salvation? Wesleyan Arminians say, yes, as long as one repents each time. The Reformed Arminians say, No, because one's salvation is secure as long as one remains in Christ by faith. However, on the basis of passages such as Hebrews 6:4-6, the Reformed Arminian concludes that "it is impossible to restore again to repentance" (v. 4) those who have committed apostasy.

So, there are two broad differences among Arminians: Reformed Arminians vs. Wesleyan Arminians.

In Christ, Oz

Thanks Oz.