Calvinism

[DiscipleOfIAm]

Alright, I have had questions about Calvinists and Non-Calvinists stemming from another post. What is it? How are they different? What makes the difference?

Any clear definition would be great, too. Try it as though you were speaking to your kids when trying to explain. I'm a little slow on this subject.

God Bless

[C.I. Scofield]

Alright, I have had questions about Calvinists and Non-Calvinists stemming from another post. What is it? How are they different? What makes the difference?

Any clear definition would be great, too. Try it as though you were speaking to your kids when trying to explain. I'm a little slow on this subject.

God Bless
First Calvinism:


Basically, Calvinism is known by an acronym: T.U.L.I.P.

Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)

These five categories do not comprise Calvinism in totality. They simply represent some of its main points.


Total Depravity:
Sin has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind, and body are all affected by sin. We are completely sinful. We are not as sinful as we could be, but we are completely affected by sin.
The doctrine of Total Depravity is derived from scriptures that reveal human character: Man’s heart is evil (Mark 7:21-23) and sick (Jer. 17:9). Man is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:20). He does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). He cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). He is at enmity with God (Eph. 2:15). And, is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). The Calvinist asks the question, "In light of the scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?" The answer is, "He cannot. Therefore God must predestine."
Calvinism also maintains that because of our s fallen nature we are born again not by our own will but God’s will (John 1:12-13); God grants that we believe (Phil. 1:29); faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29); God appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48); and God predestines (Eph. 1:1-11; Rom. 8:29; 9:9-23).

Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. (Rom. 9:15, 21).

(On a personal note... I don't really believe personally that God "elects" or chooses anyone in the hell, But people choose that themselves, by rejecting the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Not to contradict myself... But I do believe we have a choice in that matter.)



Limited Atonement:
Jesus died only for the elect. Though Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for all, it was not efficacious for all. Jesus only bore the sins of the elect. Support for this position is drawn from such scriptures as Matt. 26:28 where Jesus died for ‘many'; John 10:11, 15 which say that Jesus died for the sheep (not the goats, per Matt. 25:32-33); John 17:9 where Jesus in prayer interceded for the ones given Him, not those of the entire world; Acts 20:28 and Eph. 5:25-27 which state that the Church was purchased by Christ, not all people; and Isaiah 53:12 which is a prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion where he would bore the sins of many (not all).

Irresistible Grace:
When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted. This call is by the Holy Spirit who works in the hearts and minds of the elect to bring them to repentance and regeneration whereby they willingly and freely come to God. Some of the verses used in support of this teaching are Romans 9:16 where it says that "it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy"; Philippians 2:12-13 where God is said to be the one working salvation in the individual; John 6:28-29 where faith is declared to be the work of God; Acts 13:48 where God appoints people to believe; and John 1:12-13 where being born again is not by man’s will, but by God’s.

Perseverance of the Saints:
You cannot lose your salvation. Because the Father has elected, the Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those thus saved are eternally secure. They are eternally secure in Christ. Some of the verses for this position are John 10:27-28 where Jesus said His sheep will never perish; John 6:47 where salvation is described as everlasting life; Romans 8:1 where it is said we have passed out of judgment; 1 Corinthians 10:13 where God promises to never let us be tempted beyond what we can handle; and Phil. 1:6 where God is the one being faithful to perfect us until the day of Jesus’ return.
and Now Arminianism:


Theology

The Arminians suggested five, anti-Calvinist corrections, which are summarized below:


Conditional Election: God has decreed to save through Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus) Christ, out of the fallen and sinful human race, those foreknown by him who through the grace of the Holy Spirit believe in Christ; but God leaves in sin those foreseen, who are incorrigible and unbelieving.


Universal Atonement: Christ's death was suffered on behalf of all men, but God elects for salvation only those who believe in Christ.


Free Will with Partial Depravity: Freedom of will is man's natural state, not a spiritual gift - and thus free will was not lost in the Fall. The grace of Christ works upon all men to influence them for good, but only those who freely choose to agree with grace by faith and repentance are given new spiritual power to make effectual the good they otherwise impotently intend.


Resistible Grace: The grace of God works for good in all men, and brings about newness of life through faith. But grace can be resisted even by the regenerate.


Uncertain Perseverance: Those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith have power given them through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit, sufficient to enable them to persevere in the faith. But it may be possible for a believer to fall from grace.
More info on this can be found....:

Calvinism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism

and

Arminianism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism

Hope this Helps!

CIS
:preach:

[Crazy Liz]

Any clear definition would be great, too. Try it as though you were speaking to your kids when trying to explain. I'm a little slow on this subject.

CIS has posted some pretty concise definitions, so I'll just try to simplify as much as possible the most basic difference. Arminians believe humans have free will, and can choose to come to God or not. Calvinists believe all humans are predestined, either to heaven or hell. Many Calvinists do not believe in double predestination - God only predestines the Elect, not the non-elect, who go to hell. I've never understood the mental gymnastics that deny both free will and double predestination, unless one accepts universalism (all will eventually be saved).

Anyway, the basic difference is predestination vs. free will.

BTW, Calvinism and Arminianism are both constructs of Reformed theology and Reformed soteriology. There are other Christian views on free will and predestination besides these.

[ps139]

What are the other views called Liz? Is one called Molinism? This area of theology is all a mystery to me.

[ZiSunka]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Crazy Liz again.

[BBAS 64]

Alright, I have had questions about Calvinists and Non-Calvinists stemming from another post. What is it? How are they different? What makes the difference?

Any clear definition would be great, too. Try it as though you were speaking to your kids when trying to explain. I'm a little slow on this subject.

God BlessGood Day, DiscipleOfIam

Have you read any work by a Baptist on this issue ie Spurgeon?

http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm

The basics is this IMO. One who hold to the Doctrines of grace "Calvinism" Believe that Jesus died on the cross for a known group of people "elect".

They are his Sheep, the ones given to the Son by the Father, those who are drawn by the Father, those who where chosen in Him, those who were ordained to eternal life, the predestined ones according to the Father's good pleasure, His people, the ones Jesus obtained enternal life for, the ones God works belif in... ect...


It is all about what God whats and wills to happen, some think that Jesus died for all or for those who of there own chose would believe in him. if that were the case then there remains some major problem with the will and power of God.

By the way Calvism does not say that man does not have a free will, if you search for Augustine work on that issue you will gleen some historical insights to that issue.

Peace to u,

Bill

[rural_preacher]

Another good website to read on this matter is:

http://www.calvarychapel.com/library/smith-chuck/books/caatwog.htm



--

[theseed]

Alright, I have had questions about Calvinists and Non-Calvinists stemming from another post. What is it? How are they different? What makes the difference?

Any clear definition would be great, too. Try it as though you were speaking to your kids when trying to explain. I'm a little slow on this subject.

God Bless
That's an interesting question. How would/do you explain Calvinist theology to your kids? I would probably not lecture my own kids on the finer points of theology--at least not until they got older.

[Crazy Liz]

What are the other views called Liz? Is one called Molinism? This area of theology is all a mystery to me.
No. Molinism is a theory about God's foreknowledge, but does not include a theory of soteriology. Because Calvinism posits that God not only knows everything that will happen in the future, but actually dictates every detail, it would disagree with Molinism, which is one theory that attempts to explain how God might not control every detail of the future.

Since open theism can't be discussed in CO forums, I choose not to discuss any issues of God's foreknowledge here. Post in LT with links from here and from GT, and you'll probably be able to get a good idea of different views of divine foreknowledge. Erwin wants open theism discussed in UT, but most members who hold or sympathize with that view refuse to post in UT.

[Crazy Liz]

What are the other views called Liz? Is one called Molinism? This area of theology is all a mystery to me.

I'm not sure whether they all have names that describe them in categorically equivalent terms. Calvinism and Arminianism are opposing views within the Reformed framework. Lutherans, Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox Christians don't seem to ask exactly the same questions, so they have not defined the same types of categories to simultaneously explain God's foreknowledge, God's sovereignty and the mechanics of salvation.

BTW, "The Doctrines of Grace" is another phrase that means Calvinism. It is basically a code phrase because it is understood by Calvinists to have a technical meaning (TULIP), but non-Calvinists do not necessarily understand how it is used in this technical sense.

[Glisten]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Crazy Liz again.



I did it for you. :)

[ZiSunka]

Thanks!! :)

[Crazy Liz]

Awww... :blush: Thanks, ladies!

[Gwenyfur]

WOW...at this point I think I'm going to be reading for a week just to catch up here LOL

Thanks y'all for giving me a reason to do some research again



:D

[theseed]

What are the other views called Liz? Is one called Molinism? This area of theology is all a mystery to me.I got in a discussion once with thereslittleflower(I think), and she made a good case for the Roman Catholic position of sacraments, but it was based the premise that we can resist God's prevenient grace. She might have had me convinced that infant baptism is necessary for the sanctifying grace. I kept it secret from her that I was a Calvinist, when she found it, then she stopped. Very interesting discussion indeed.

[BT]

I don't think that there is much difference between (some of) Catholic theology and (some of) Calvinist theology. Most of Calvins writings were derived from Augustine who is considered (by some) the "father of Roman Catholicism", and coming from a reformer it's not a big surprise (since the reformers weren't breaking away from the RCC but rather wanting to reform it "fix it" and stick with it). That's why we see a lot of Catholicish (yay I made up a word!) concepts in Luther's (and others') writings. Which is yet another reason that I hold to the definition of myself as a non-Catholic and not a protestant...

Anyway, there are (as Liz noted) other branches of theological thought aside from Calvinism and Arminianism. Speaking soteriologically (doctrine of salvation), that is. There was a major thrust from the "church fathers" on the doctrines of salvation in case you've never noticed. This should come as no great surprise, since, if you're going to learn about theology the first and utmost important subject matter is figuring out how to be saved. The rest (as the dog from Bugs Bunny says) is gravy...

[BBAS 64]

I don't think that there is much difference between (some of) Catholic theology and (some of) Calvinist theology. Most of Calvins writings were derived from Augustine who is considered (by some) the "father of Roman Catholicism", and coming from a reformer it's not a big surprise (since the reformers weren't breaking away from the RCC but rather wanting to reform it "fix it" and stick with it). That's why we see a lot of Catholicish (yay I made up a word!) concepts in Luther's (and others') writings. Which is yet another reason that I hold to the definition of myself as a non-Catholic and not a protestant...

Anyway, there are (as Liz noted) other branches of theological thought aside from Calvinism and Arminianism. Speaking soteriologically (doctrine of salvation), that is. There was a major thrust from the "church fathers" on the doctrines of salvation in case you've never noticed. This should come as no great surprise, since, if you're going to learn about theology the first and utmost important subject matter is figuring out how to be saved. The rest (as the dog from Bugs Bunny says) is gravy...
Good Day, BT

Hope things are well with you and yours! I would be interested in some of the things you see as the same? Do you think that Augustine is true a representation of the current state of the Roman Church, on what basis of his writings do come to that conclusion?

Peace to u,

Bill

[theseed]

I don't think that there is much difference between (some of) Catholic theology and (some of) Calvinist theology. Most of Calvins writings were derived from Augustine who is considered (by some) the "father of Roman Catholicism", and coming from a reformer it's not a big surprise (since the reformers weren't breaking away from the RCC but rather wanting to reform it "fix it" and stick with it). That's why we see a lot of Catholicish (yay I made up a word!) concepts in Luther's (and others') writings. Which is yet another reason that I hold to the definition of myself as a non-Catholic and not a protestant...

Anyway, there are (as Liz noted) other branches of theological thought aside from Calvinism and Arminianism. Speaking soteriologically (doctrine of salvation), that is. There was a major thrust from the "church fathers" on the doctrines of salvation in case you've never noticed. This should come as no great surprise, since, if you're going to learn about theology the first and utmost important subject matter is figuring out how to be saved. The rest (as the dog from Bugs Bunny says) is gravy...
Yeah, I must say, that most RC's would disagree strongly with you, and they would say that St. Augustine is misunderstood.

[ps139]

I don't think that there is much difference between (some of) Catholic theology and (some of) Calvinist theology. Most of Calvins writings were derived from Augustine who is considered (by some) the "father of Roman Catholicism", and coming from a reformer it's not a big surprise (since the reformers weren't breaking away from the RCC but rather wanting to reform it "fix it" and stick with it). That's why we see a lot of Catholicish (yay I made up a word!) concepts in Luther's (and others') writings. Which is yet another reason that I hold to the definition of myself as a non-Catholic and not a protestant... Yah, I have noticed that the Thomists (Thomist comes from Thomas Aquinas) and Calvinists are more similar that I'd originally thought. There are a few things Calvinists accept and Thomists reject, but they do not seem to me as different as you might think. I'm I'm not mistaken though Calvin and Luther disagreed on a lot of issues, even though they both used Augustine as a basis, Luther seems more "Catholic." (LOL I never thought I'd say that!).

[BBAS 64]

Yah, I have noticed that the Thomists (Thomist comes from Thomas Aquinas) and Calvinists are more similar that I'd originally thought. There are a few things Calvinists accept and Thomists reject, but they do not seem to me as different as you might think. I'm I'm not mistaken though Calvin and Luther disagreed on a lot of issues, even though they both used Augustine as a basis, Luther seems more "Catholic." (LOL I never thought I'd say that!).
Good Day, Ps139

Can I copy this to my HDD for future use ?? :D :P

Peace to u,

Bill

[Crazy Liz]

Yah, I have noticed that the Thomists (Thomist comes from Thomas Aquinas) and Calvinists are more similar that I'd originally thought. There are a few things Calvinists accept and Thomists reject, but they do not seem to me as different as you might think. I'm I'm not mistaken though Calvin and Luther disagreed on a lot of issues, even though they both used Augustine as a basis, Luther seems more "Catholic." (LOL I never thought I'd say that!).

Funnny you should note the similarities between Aquinas and Calvin. I was talking to my niece about that over Christmas. She had received a bio of Aquinas by Chesterton, and I had remarked how I wanted to read some Chesterton, but wouldn't pick that. She asked why I would not like Aquinas, given that he is so logical. I told her I thought his logic was like Calvin's - a little too deductive, to the point where it magnified small errors in the basic assumptions, and that both failed to consider a sufficient number of alternatives, so that they often thought they had proven something true when they had only proven it plausible.

[theseed]

Funnny you should note the similarities between Aquinas and Calvin. I was talking to my niece about that over Christmas. She had received a bio of Aquinas by Chesterton, and I had remarked how I wanted to read some Chesterton, but wouldn't pick that. She asked why I would not like Aquinas, given that he is so logical. I told her I thought his logic was like Calvin's - a little too deductive, to the point where it magnified small errors in the basic assumptions, and that both failed to consider a sufficient number of alternatives, so that they often thought they had proven something true when they had only proven it plausible.
Oooh, Calvin was a Roman Catholic Priest--I'm pretty sure he knew the alternatives.

[theseed]

Yah, I have noticed that the Thomists (Thomist comes from Thomas Aquinas) and Calvinists are more similar that I'd originally thought. There are a few things Calvinists accept and Thomists reject, but they do not seem to me as different as you might think. I'm I'm not mistaken though Calvin and Luther disagreed on a lot of issues, even though they both used Augustine as a basis, Luther seems more "Catholic." (LOL I never thought I'd say that!).
I've read that Luther was afraid of taking his doctrine of total depravity to its logical conclusion--that God choses certain people to be saved.

[ps139]

Funnny you should note the similarities between Aquinas and Calvin. I was talking to my niece about that over Christmas. She had received a bio of Aquinas by Chesterton, and I had remarked how I wanted to read some Chesterton, but wouldn't pick that. She asked why I would not like Aquinas, given that he is so logical. I told her I thought his logic was like Calvin's - a little too deductive, to the point where it magnified small errors in the basic assumptions, and that both failed to consider a sufficient number of alternatives, so that they often thought they had proven something true when they had only proven it plausible.Oh Liz, this is a wonderful book! Even if you do not want to read much about Aquinas, just read it because it is the most interesting bio I've ever read. Chesterton does this bio in a totally unconventional way, and its worth reading just for that. I've never read a bio structured like this one, or as good as this one. Its just so different and excellent. If you want to read some Chesterton and need some other recommendations, PM me, GKC is my favorite author.

[ps139]

Good Day, Ps139

Can I copy this to my HDD for future use ?? :D :P

Peace to u,

Bill

Go for it Bill! The more I read of Luther the more I am surprised!

[DiscipleOfIAm]

That's an interesting question. How would/do you explain Calvinist theology to your kids? I would probably not lecture my own kids on the finer points of theology--at least not until they got older.
Hardee Har Har! Please, we all know I, meant to explain in the simplest of terms.

But, since you bring it up, why wouldn't you want to explain theology to your children? Would you rather someone else explain it to them for you? It's your job as a parent to teach your children, not the schools, not your Sunday School, You. :wave:

[DiscipleOfIAm]

Thanks for all the repsonses everyone! I am sure I'm not a Calvinist, Lutheran, or Protestant. I'm whatever the New Testament Church is, which basically falls under Independent Fundamental Baptist!

But, the confusion is cleared up and thanks to all for all of your indepth research.

God Bless

[Crazy Liz]

But, since you bring it up, why wouldn't you want to explain theology to your children? Would you rather someone else explain it to them for you? It's your job as a parent to teach your children, not the schools, not your Sunday School, You. :wave:
This is a good question. What do you think about teaching Calvinist theology to children?

I can think of two reasons it might not be appropriate: (1) It is too fatalistic for children. While it may give security to disillusioned middle-aged adults, I think for children it runs counter to the kind of hope they need. It seems to me like it would be a very scary theology to a child who does not yet have any kind of assurance that he or she is among the Elect.

(2) It is based on a type of abstract reasoning children are not capable of before the age of about 12. I would say a child who is not ready for algebra is also not capable of understanding this type of theology. (And perhaps it takes a mind capable of understanding calculus to move beyond it ;) )

I know that the most strongly Calvinist denominations (such as Christian Reformed) put great emphasis on Christian education. Calvin College used to require all its faculty to send their children to Christian schools. I remember reading a few years ago about a faculty member who was fired for sending his children to a public school. I'm not sure I understand this. Maybe it would be a good question to ask in Semper Reformanda. Anyway, I'm curious about how the most staunch Calvinists introduce their children to this theology, and at what age.

[Crazy Liz]

Oh Liz, this is a wonderful book! Even if you do not want to read much about Aquinas, just read it because it is the most interesting bio I've ever read. Chesterton does this bio in a totally unconventional way, and its worth reading just for that. I've never read a bio structured like this one, or as good as this one. Its just so different and excellent. If you want to read some Chesterton and need some other recommendations, PM me, GKC is my favorite author.

Thanks for the recommendation. You have piqued my interest. :thumbsup:

[theseed]

Well, I've already started a thread there.

[Crazy Liz]

Well, I've already started a thread there.

Can you post a link?

[theseed]

Can you post a link?
It should be on the front page

[theseed]

Can you post a link?
http://www.christianforums.com/t1170567-how-do-you-teach-the-doctrines-of-grace-to-children.html

[DiscipleOfIAm]

This is a good question. What do you think about teaching Calvinist theology to children?

I can think of two reasons it might not be appropriate: (1) It is too fatalistic for children. While it may give security to disillusioned middle-aged adults, I think for children it runs counter to the kind of hope they need. It seems to me like it would be a very scary theology to a child who does not yet have any kind of assurance that he or she is among the Elect.

(2) It is based on a type of abstract reasoning children are not capable of before the age of about 12. I would say a child who is not ready for algebra is also not capable of understanding this type of theology. (And perhaps it takes a mind capable of understanding calculus to move beyond it ;) )

I know that the most strongly Calvinist denominations (such as Christian Reformed) put great emphasis on Christian education. Calvin College used to require all its faculty to send their children to Christian schools. I remember reading a few years ago about a faculty member who was fired for sending his children to a public school. I'm not sure I understand this. Maybe it would be a good question to ask in Semper Reformanda. Anyway, I'm curious about how the most staunch Calvinists introduce their children to this theology, and at what age.
I wasn't talking about teaching just Calvinsim to children. I was talking about teaching your, the parent's, beliefs to your children. I consider a 12 year old a child.

Obviously, I'm not saying teach your 5 year old anything above their level, but certainly teach them about salvation, faith, your beliefs, etc.

I personally, after having it expalined to me and as stated above, do not believe in Calvinism. And I would only teach my children my beliefs, which are based only what the Bible states. But, certainly teaching at a seminary level to a child is not a good idea! Age appropriate!

God Bless

[theseed]

Thanks for all the repsonses everyone! I am sure I'm not a Calvinist, Lutheran, or Protestant. I'm whatever the New Testament Church is, which basically falls under Independent Fundamental Baptist!

But, the confusion is cleared up and thanks to all for all of your indepth research.

God Bless
The problem is that Calvinism is biblical, and if you reject it the you reject The teachings of the NT.

[theseed]

1) It is too fatalistic for children. While it may give security to disillusioned middle-aged adults,

1)Calvinism is not fatalistic because it depends soley on God's grace

2)The "free will" arguments are fatalistic because they depend on making a person change thier mind. The fate of those who hear the Gospel does not rest ultimately on God, but on the person who's personality/will/intellect is pre-determined by thier circumstances, genetics, and upbringing.

3)On what basis do you conclude that only middle aged adults are Calvinists? And why somebody who is Calvinist be disallusioned? Also, why can't someone become non-Calvnist because they are disallusioned?

I think for children it runs counter to the kind of hope they need. It seems to me like it would be a very scary theology to a child who does not yet have any kind of assurance that he or she is among the Elect.

Calvinism does not teach that you can't know if you elect. You are confusing Calvinism with Hyper-Calvinism.

It is based on a type of abstract reasoning children are not capable of before the age of about 12.

Yes, if you understand it the context of alot of Scripture. However, TULIP is a simplified version that can be unstood on a concrete level. Also, you would begin by teaching the Gospel on a leve they understand, and later teach how it works.

[ps139]

Calvinism does not teach that you can't know if you elect. You are confusing Calvinism with Hyper-Calvinism.What is the difference between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism.
And would "hyper-Calvinists" call themselves Calvinists, and you a "weaker Calvinist," or do they refer to themselves as "hyper Calvinist"?

[DiscipleOfIAm]

The problem is that Calvinism is biblical, and if you reject it the you reject The teachings of the NT.
Does it say in the Bible that if you do not hold the same theology as another, you will go to Hell? If I believe that Calvinism is not Biblical and you believe it is, will one of us go to Hell? If I believe in a literal Hell and someone else doesn't, will one of us find out for sure by going there?

Jesus said no one will come to the Father but by me, not no one will come to the Father unless they believe Calvinism or such and such man interpreted doctrine.

God Bless and I'll see you in Heaven someday whether we agree on Calvinism or not!

[theseed]

Does it say in the Bible that if you do not hold the same theology as another, you will go to Hell? If I believe that Calvinism is not Biblical and you believe it is, will one of us go to Hell? If I believe in a literal Hell and someone else doesn't, will one of us find out for sure by going there?

Jesus said no one will come to the Father but by me, not no one will come to the Father unless they believe Calvinism or such and such man interpreted doctrine.

God Bless and I'll see you in Heaven someday whether we agree on Calvinism or not!
Did I say anything about you not being saved?

[theseed]

What is the difference between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism.
And would "hyper-Calvinists" call themselves Calvinists, and you a "weaker Calvinist," or do they refer to themselves as "hyper Calvinist"?Sometimes, hyper-Calvinists will call Calvnist "hypo-Calvinists" to be sarcastic.

Here is a thread and a website about the subject of Hyper-Calvinism.

What is hyper-calvinism? (http://www.christianforums.com/t671356)

http://www.ldolphin.org/common.html (http://www.ldolphin.org/common.html) (I'm not sure about this website, I think it talks about common grace vs. grace for salvation.

You may also be interested in this thread.
Myths and Misconceptions about Calvinism (http://www.christianforums.com/t695143-myths-and-misconceptions-about-calvinism.html)

[Leimeng]

~ The major problem of Calvinism, as well as Arminianism, et al, is that they have to ignore about one third of Scripture for their system to work. Of course, no calvinist or arminian would ever admit that. In fact, they would probably be offended by that statement of fact.
~ Another major problem of Calvinism and Arminianism is that both of them try to apply modern meanings to different words in the English language which were written in an English style several hundred years old.
~ Yet another problem of those two systems is a lack of understanding of Greek and Hebrew as well as the Greek and Hebrew culture which provided the backdrop for Scripture.
~ The best idea is to read the Bible and ask the Holy Spirit to teach you. Then, for entertainment and intellectual enjoyment, read different viewpoints as taught by fallen men.
~ Continue to discuss amongst yourselves...

Peace,

Flatulo Ergo Sum ~~~

NyQuil - The stuffy, sneezy, coughing, why-oh-why-is-the-room-spinning medicine.

[theseed]

Sometimes, hyper-Calvinists will call Calvnist "hypo-Calvinists" to be sarcastic.

Here is a thread and a website about the subject of Hyper-Calvinism.

What is hyper-calvinism? (http://www.christianforums.com/t671356)

http://www.ldolphin.org/common.html (http://www.ldolphin.org/common.html) (I'm not sure about this website, I think it talks about common grace vs. grace for salvation.

You may also be interested in this thread.
Myths and Misconceptions about Calvinism (http://www.christianforums.com/t695143-myths-and-misconceptions-about-calvinism.html)
Here is some more info.


A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm)

[theseed]

~ The major problem of Calvinism, as well as Arminianism, et al, is that they have to ignore about one third of Scripture for their system to work. Of course, no calvinist or arminian would ever admit that. In fact, they would probably be offended by that statement of fact.
~ Another major problem of Calvinism and Arminianism is that both of them try to apply modern meanings to different words in the English language which were written in an English style several hundred years old.
~ Yet another problem of those two systems is a lack of understanding of Greek and Hebrew as well as the Greek and Hebrew culture which provided the backdrop for Scripture.
~ The best idea is to read the Bible and ask the Holy Spirit to teach you. Then, for entertainment and intellectual enjoyment, read different viewpoints as taught by fallen men.
~ Continue to discuss amongst yourselves...

Peace,

Flatulo Ergo Sum ~~~

NyQuil - The stuffy, sneezy, coughing, why-oh-why-is-the-room-spinning medicine.
The real problem is that all those things can be said about what you believe 1)Ignoring Scripture, 2)not knowing the Greek, 3)Not alloing The Holy Spirit to teach you. 4)The meanings of words.

[ps139]

theseed, what does this word mean? :
supralapsarian

[theseed]

theseed, what does this word mean? :
supralapsarian
Supralapsarians believe that God chose certian people to be damned and certain people to be saved, whereas infralapsarians believe that all were damned, and God chose to pardon some. I'm infralapsarian.

supralapsarian

\Su`pra*lap*sa"ri*an\, n. [Supra- + lapse: cf. F. supralapsaire.] (Eccl. Hist.) One of that class of Calvinists who believed that God's decree of election determined that man should fall, in order that the opportunity might be furnished of securing the redemption of a part of the race, the decree of salvation being conceived of as formed before or beyond, and not after or following, the lapse, or fall. Cf. Infralapsarian (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=infralapsarian).
Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=00-database-info&db=web1913): Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

[ps139]

So would supralapsarians believe in double predestination?

[JM]

I'm a seven pointer!

The "sixth" point, double predestination, is simply the flip side of unconditional election. Just as God chooses whom He will save without regard to any distinctives in the person (Ephesians 1:5-6; Acts 13:48; Revelation 17:8), so also he decides whom He will not save without regard to any distinctives in the individual (John 10:26; 12:37-40; Romans 9:11-18; 1 Peter 2:7-8). By definition, the decision to elect some individuals to salvation necessarily implies the decision not to save those that were not chosen. God ordains not only that some will be rescued from his judgment, but that others will undergo that judgment. This does not mean that someone might really want to be saved but then be rejected because they are on the wrong list. Rather, we are all dead in sin and unwilling to seek God on our own. A true, genuine desire for salvation in Christ is in fact a mark of election, and therefore none who truly come to Christ for salvation will be turned away (John 6:37-40).

So just as God doesn't choose to save certain people because they are better than others (unconditional election), neither does he choose not to save certain people because they are worse than others (unconditional reprobation, or double predestination). Rather, everybody is lost in sin and no one has anything to recommend them to God above anyone else. And so from this mass of fallen humanity, God chooses to redeem some and leave others.

The "seventh" point, the best-of-all-possible worlds, means that God governs the course of history so that, in the long run, His glory will be more fully displayed and His people more fully satisfied than would have been the case in any other world. If we look only at the way things are now in the present era of this fallen world, this is not the best-of-all-possible worlds. But if we look at the whole course of history, from creation to redemption to eternity and beyond, and see the entirety of God's plan, it is the best-of-all-possible plans and leads to the best-of-all-possible eternities. And therefore this universe (and the events that happen in it from creation into eternity, taken as a whole) is the best-of-all-possible-worlds.

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/theological_qa/calvinism/seven_points.html

'Most' Baptists follow what's called Amyraldianism (it's a big word and probably the reason why it's not well known). It was the work of Moyse Amyrault (born 1596 - died 1664) and is semi-Calvinist. http://www.tulipedia.org/Amyraldianism

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

So would supralapsarians believe in double predestination?All Calvinists believe in double predestination, but not all of them teach it.

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

I'm a seven pointer!
'Most' Baptists follow what's called Amyraldianism (it's a big word and probably the reason why it's not well known). It was the work of Moyse Amyrault (born 1596 - died 1664) and is semi-Calvinist.
Actually the average Southern Baptist (I'll use the term because it what I am most familiar with) is at best a 2-3 point Calvinist, because Amyraldianism teaches hypothetical unlimited antonement. But most Southern Baptist believe the limited effectiveness of the atonement, as well as total depravity (not to be confused with total inability), and eternal security.

[ps139]

All Calvinists believe in double predestination, but not all of them teach it. I thought that was the 6th point? Are you saying a 5 point Calvinist believes that?

[JM]

I thought that was the 6th point? Are you saying a 5 point Calvinist believes that?
You can't have the 5 without reasoning the last 2. It's a joke in a way to list yourself as a 7 pointer. :sorry:

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

You can't have the 5 without reasoning the last 2. It's a joke in a way to list yourself as a 7 pointer. :sorry:
precisely

[DiscipleOfIAm]

Did I say anything about you not being saved?
Easy!! Lighten up a bit. I was simply stating that we can all have our own opinions or beliefs about a subject and still end up in the same place.

Such combative Christians on this forum. I thought we were all supposed to love each other and share similarities and differences. Everyone always seems to get so combative and defensive and ready to argue/debate at the drop of a hat. Sometimes I feel like I have to articulate every word to ensure that it isn't taken out of context and is explained fully to ensure there is no debate or combative reaction. I'm just venting, that's all. I came to this forum from another forum that was very uptight and tense thinking this one would be better, but recently I'm getting a little discouraged with the posts I'm seeing. Why is it that every thing we discuss has to end up debated or argued to death?

Sorry....God Bless to all!

[JM]

Such combative Christians on this forum.
Could just be the style of writting, I'm often seen as posting 'combative' posts, but I really don't mean to. :holy:

[Crazy Liz]

Easy!! Lighten up a bit. I was simply stating that we can all have our own opinions or beliefs about a subject and still end up in the same place.

Such combative Christians on this forum. I thought we were all supposed to love each other and share similarities and differences. Everyone always seems to get so combative and defensive and ready to argue/debate at the drop of a hat. Sometimes I feel like I have to articulate every word to ensure that it isn't taken out of context and is explained fully to ensure there is no debate or combative reaction. I'm just venting, that's all. I came to this forum from another forum that was very uptight and tense thinking this one would be better, but recently I'm getting a little discouraged with the posts I'm seeing. Why is it that every thing we discuss has to end up debated or argued to death?

Sorry....God Bless to all!

Don't worry, DOIA. You're not alone. I'm not a Calvinist, either. Point #6 simply goes too far against God's love. Teach your children that God loves them and all their little friends and don't worry about those who disagree.

[theseed]

Don't worry, DOIA. You're not alone. I'm not a Calvinist, either. Point #6 simply goes too far against God's love. Teach your children that God loves them and all their little friends and don't worry about those who disagree.
Off course, Many Calvinists agree that God loves everbody.

[theseed]

So would supralapsarians believe in double predestination?
Yes, and it can be said of infralapsarians too. Even though God choses to pardon some, by default he choses some not to pardon. Honestly, I don't think single predestination is logical--it just splitting hairs.

[theseed]

Actually the average Southern Baptist (I'll use the term because it what I am most familiar with) is at best a 2-3 point Calvinist, because Amyraldianism teaches hypothetical unlimited antonement. But most Southern Baptist believe the limited effectiveness of the atonement, as well as total depravity (not to be confused with total inability), and eternal security.
Dod some SBCer's distinguish between total inability and total depravity? :confused:

[theseed]

Easy!! Lighten up a bit. I was simply stating that we can all have our own opinions or beliefs about a subject and still end up in the same place.

Such combative Christians on this forum. I thought we were all supposed to love each other and share similarities and differences. Everyone always seems to get so combative and defensive and ready to argue/debate at the drop of a hat. Sometimes I feel like I have to articulate every word to ensure that it isn't taken out of context and is explained fully to ensure there is no debate or combative reaction. I'm just venting, that's all. I came to this forum from another forum that was very uptight and tense thinking this one would be better, but recently I'm getting a little discouraged with the posts I'm seeing. Why is it that every thing we discuss has to end up debated or argued to death?

Sorry....God Bless to all!
I'm sorry, I did not mean to stress you so. However, your post did sound combative because you were insenuating that your church was a NT church (biblical) and that Calvinists churches were not.

May the grace of our Lord be with you, now and always may you stay blameless until he comes.

[Fat]

This comes an article posted at (biblediscussion.org) It's to long to post here but the questions makes you see how complicated the issue of election vs. free will is.


"Why pray for anyone's conversion if God has chosen before the foundation of the world who will be his sons?" A person in need of conversion is "dead in trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1); he is "enslaved to sin" (Romans 6:17; John 8:34); "the god of this world has blinded his mind that he might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ" (II Corinthians. 4:4); his heart is hardened against God (Ephesians 4:18) so that he is hostile to God and in rebellion against God's will (Romans 8:7).

Now I would like to turn the question back to my questioner: If you insist that this man must have the power of ultimate self-determination, what is the point of praying for him? What do you want God to do for Him? You can't ask that God overcome the man's rebellion, for rebellion is precisely what the man is now choosing, so that would mean God overcame his choice and took away his power of self-determination. But how can God save this man unless he act so as to change the man's heart from hard hostility to tender trust?

Will you pray that God enlighten his mind so that he truly see the beauty of Christ and believe? If you pray this, you are in effect asking God no longer to leave the determination of the man's will in his own power. You are asking God to do something within the man's mind (or heart) so that he will surely see and believe. That is, you are conceding that the ultimate determination of the man's decision to trust Christ is God's, not merely his.

[BBAS 64]

Don't worry, DOIA. You're not alone. I'm not a Calvinist, either. Point #6 simply goes too far against God's love. Teach your children that God loves them and all their little friends and don't worry about those who disagree.
Good day, Liz

Hope you are well. I do understand in some ways your need to teach such a view to your little ones. But how does one in the end reconcile the plain teaching in the Scripture.

Psa 137:8

O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one, How blessed will be the one who repays you With the recompense with which you have repaid us. Psa 137:9 How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock.

Peace to u,

Bill

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

Dod some SBCer's distinguish between total inability and total depravity? :confused:
Yes, I'm personally am one of them, but there are others as well.

[Crazy Liz]

Good day, Liz

Hope you are well. I do understand in some ways your need to teach such a view to your little ones. But how does one in the end reconcile the plain teaching in the Scripture.

Psa 137:8

O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one, How blessed will be the one who repays you With the recompense with which you have repaid us. Psa 137:9 How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock.

Peace to u,

Bill


Psalms are "plain teaching?" I thought they were poetry.

The particular one you chose is very interesting to me because it is a prayer that goes completely contrary to God's command:

jeremiah 29:7

That this psalm became part of the canon of Israel's songs, even when God had commanded them to pray the opposite tells me that God loves and accepts us, even when we just don't "get it," and fail to pray as we should. God still hears us when our prayers are hateful and wrong-headed.

Peace to you and your little ones! :thumbsup:

[theseed]

unimportantbuthisnameis,

What do you think is the difference between total depravity and total inability?

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

unimportantbuthisnameis,

What do you think is the difference between total depravity and total inability?.
By my personal def. total depravity is the inability of sinful man to enter into the presence of a Holy God based upon man's righteousness.

Total inability (by my understanding) is thought that man first does not seek God, and that secondly man is not a free moral agent that can actually choose to do good apart from divine intervention.

[theseed]

.
By my personal def. total depravity is the inability of sinful man to enter into the presence of a Holy God based upon man's righteousness.

Total inability (by my understanding) is thought that man first does not seek God, and that secondly man is not a free moral agent that can actually choose to do good apart from divine intervention.

That is what I thought total depravity means too. You mean some claim to believe in Total Depravity, but no inability?

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

That is what I thought total depravity means too. You mean some claim to believe in Total Depravity, but no inability?Yes, I do, because Genesis 11 shows mankind seeking God, and Romans 2:14 both refute my understanding of the Calvinist teaching of total inability (as both show sinful seeking God).

[theseed]

Yes, I do, because Genesis 11 shows mankind seeking God, and Romans 2:14 both refute my understanding of the Calvinist teaching of total inability (as both show sinful seeking God).Calvinists don't teach that sinners don't seek God. They teach that no man comes to God without the help of the Holy Spirit. To suggest otherwise is called Pelegianism, and it belongs in Unorthodox Theology.

[BBAS 64]

Yes, I do, because Genesis 11 shows mankind seeking God, and Romans 2:14 both refute my understanding of the Calvinist teaching of total inability (as both show sinful seeking God).
Good Day, Unimportant

I would say that you have misunderstood The Doctrines of Grace and the nature of the Gospel.

Peace to u,

Bill

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

Good Day, Unimportant

I would say that you have misunderstood The Doctrines of Grace and the nature of the Gospel.

Peace to u,

BillIn what way I have misunderstood anything about Calvinism? You have posted with me several times in other threads you realize that I have a great understanding of the beliefs and concepts of Calvinism.

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

Calvinists don't teach that sinners don't seek God.
Actually that's what the Calvinstic system teaches whether it be directly or indirectly.

[BBAS 64]

Actually that's what the Calvinstic system teaches whether it be directly or indirectly.

Good Day, Unimportant

Cite source please.

Peace to u,

Bill

[BBAS 64]

In what way I have misunderstood anything about Calvinism? You have posted with me several times in other threads you realize that I have a great understanding of the beliefs and concepts of Calvinism.

Good Day, Unimportant

To say that The Doctrines of Grace do not teach that sinners seek God, is not to understand the Doctrines of the Gospel. It is true we have disscussed things before and I have allway found it enjoyable.

With out the drawing of the Father men in and of them selves can not come to God. The Drawing of the Father is his work and power of the Father to forfill his purpse for his plan in accordance with his will. That work and energy is expened by the Father on sinfull people.. so to say that sinners never seek is a misunderstanding of the nature of the gospel as it relates to the purpose and will of the Father.


Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

The Fathers work.

Peace to u,

Bill

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

Good Day, Unimportant

Cite source please.

Peace to u,

Bill


I don;t have a written source, but I have heard it said directly from some Calvinist brethren, and implied indirectly from all the teachings that I have studied.

[JM]

I don;t have a written source, but I have heard it said directly from some Calvinist brethren, and implied indirectly from all the teachings that I have studied.

How about Paul: Ro 3:11 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=ro+3:11&version=kjv&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1) "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God."

[theseed]

unimportantbuthisnameis,

You have Calvnist bretheren here trying to explain the doctrines of grace. You should know that no denominaiton in this forum believes that sinners seek God without his help--not the Caltholics, not the Methodists, not the Baptists, and not the Presbyterians, vbmenu_register("postmenu_10984384", true);

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

unimportantbuthisnameis,

You have Calvnist bretheren here trying to explain the doctrines of grace. You should know that no denominaiton in this forum believes that sinners seek God without his help--not the Caltholics, not the Methodists, not the Baptists, and not the Presbyterians, vbmenu_register("postmenu_10984384", true);.


I fully understand the doctrines of Calvinism and still disagree with them, what I have noticed is that many Calvinist do not realize the indirect beliefs that their teachings imply. However, the question that you have is raised is does fallen man seek God? I personally believe they do, but are unable to reach God under their own merit. Thus, the only way to enter into the kingdom of God is through faith in Jesus Christ.

[theseed]

.


I fully understand the doctrines of Calvinism and still disagree with them, what I have noticed is that many Calvinist do not realize the indirect beliefs that their teachings imply. However, the question that you have is raised is does fallen man seek God? I personally believe they do, but are unable to reach God under their own merit. Thus, the only way to enter into the kingdom of God is through faith in Jesus Christ.
If you believe that a man can seek God without the Holy Spirit, then you believe heresy. You believe in unorthodox doctrine, it is like denying the Trinity, or the ressurection of Jesus.

[BBAS 64]

.


I fully understand the doctrines of Calvinism and still disagree with them, what I have noticed is that many Calvinist do not realize the indirect beliefs that their teachings imply. However, the question that you have is raised is does fallen man seek God? I personally believe they do, but are unable to reach God under their own merit. Thus, the only way to enter into the kingdom of God is through faith in Jesus Christ.

Good day, Unimportant

How does your view differ from that of Peleginism[sp]?

Peace to u,

Bill

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

Good day, Unimportant

How does your view differ from that of Peleginism[sp]?

Peace to u,

Bill


I don't believe in sinless perfection.

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

If you believe that a man can seek God without the Holy Spirit, then you believe heresy. You believe in unorthodox doctrine, it is like denying the Trinity, or the ressurection of Jesus.

I don't deny the conviction of sin by the Holy Spirit, however I do believe that man seeks to appease I higher being.

[theseed]

I don't deny the conviction of sin by the Holy Spirit, however I do believe that man seeks to appease I higher being.
That does not mean that the higher being is God, though.

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

That does not mean that the higher being is God, though.

Ultimately, who else could it be?

[theseed]

Ultimately, who else could it be?
Some people worship false gods and idols, not God himself.

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

Some people worship false gods and idols, not God himself.


I realize that, but could the possibility exist that there were at one time in the culture searching for God himself?

[theseed]

I realize that, but could the possibility exist that there were at one time in the culture searching for God himself?

Your question does not make sense. Could you rephrase the question?

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

Your question does not make sense. Could you rephrase the question?

I'm currently trying to think of a way to better phrase my position, I'll get back to you.

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

Good day, Unimportant

How does your view differ from that of Peleginism[sp]?

Peace to u,

Bill


Try this as my view:(referenced)
III. THE FREE-WILL OF MAN

This is my opinion concerning the free-will of man: In his primitive condition as he came out of the hands (http://www.godrules.net/library/topics/topic882.htm) of his creator, man was endowed with such a portion of knowledge (http://www.godrules.net/library/topics/topic1130.htm), holiness (http://www.godrules.net/library/topics/topic942.htm) and power (http://www.godrules.net/library/topics/topic1450.htm), as enabled him to understand, esteem, consider, will, and to perform the true good, according to the commandment (http://www.godrules.net/library/topics/topic383.htm) delivered (http://www.godrules.net/library/topics/topic526.htm) to him. Yet none of these acts could he do, except through the assistance of Divine (http://www.godrules.net/library/topics/topic579.htm) Grace (http://www.godrules.net/library/topics/topic847.htm). But in his lapsed and sinful (http://www.godrules.net/library/topics/topic1738.htm) state (http://www.godrules.net/library/topics/topic1787.htm), man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed (http://www.godrules.net/library/topics/topic1561.htm) in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God (http://www.godrules.net/library/topics/topic830.htm) in Christ (http://www.godrules.net/library/topics/topic353.htm) through the Holy Spirit (http://www.godrules.net/library/topics/topic943.htm), that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration (http://www.godrules.net/library/topics/topic1549.htm) or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered (http://www.godrules.net/library/topics/topic526.htm) from sin (http://www.godrules.net/library/topics/topic1735.htm), he is capable of thinking, willing and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine (http://www.godrules.net/library/topics/topic579.htm) Grace (http://www.godrules.net/library/topics/topic847.htm).

Arminus



http://www.godrules.net/library/arminius/arminius.htm (http://www.godrules.net/library/arminius/arminius.htm)