N-C's Really Agree With Much of Calvinism

[Rippon]

There are a number of folks here who maintain that the Westminster Confession of Faith is filled with errors.One poster doesn't believe there is any biblical truth in the Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin.

It is my contention that some ill-informed ( giving them the benefit of doubt ) people are quite mistaken. I sincerely think that 51%--65% of the WCoF as well as Calvin's Institutes are in harmony with most who do not hold Calvinistic convictions. They just have not taken the time to read before making wild charges.

What do you Calvinists and non-Cals think?

I think it's about time to revive this thread.

I had said somewhere else that a true Christian who is non-calvinistic would agree with the majority of the works of John Calvin. To disagree with the majority of John Calvin's works would prove that you you weren't a Christian in the first place.

Now, a lot of non-Cals make wild assertions. Many who say that they would disagree with the bulk of John Calvin's works have clearly not read that much from the pen of that man from Geneva.

I have a little 90-page booklet that was orginally a part of his Institutes. It's called :Golden Booklet of the True Christian Life.

Here's a listing of his five chapters.

Chapter 1 : Humble Obedience, the True Imitation of Christ

Chapter 2 : Self-Denial

Chapter 3 : Patience in Crossbearing

Chapter 4 : Hopefulness for the Next World

Chapter 5 : The Right Use of the Present Life

I hereby dare any sincere non-Calvinistic Christian to read the contents of this booklet and yet declare that he/she disagrees with most of it. It's just impossibe for a real Christian. The subject matter is just too biblical to deny.

 

[Rippon]

The Westminster Confession of Faith.I think my point has been established that most non-Cals agree with the bulk of this very famous document of the Christian faith.Perhaps not as much as 85%, but certainly a solid 70% of conformity might be held.

Yes sir, most non-cals who would take the time to actually read the WCoF would agree with most of it (as much as it would rile some to say that about a Calvinistic document).

 

[Jerome]

Ignorance of what Calvin actually wrote?
You mean like when someone posts what Calvin wrote and another poster dismisses it out of hand as an "urban myth"?

 

[Rippon]

Ignorance of what Calvin actually wrote?
You mean like when someone posts what Calvin wrote and another poster dismisses it out of hand as an "urban myth"?

Jerome the derailer is at it again. In that thread (post 15) I acknowledged my mistake.

Jerome, you love to skew Spurgeon's views a great deal of the time. Did you find another hobby yet?

Back to the theme of this thread.

 

[Tom Butler]

Most non-Calvinist Baptists whom I know, and that's quite a few, are conservative, inerrrantist, evangelistic and have a strong view of God's sovereignty.

We simply disagree over the order and ground of salvation. It is not a small difference, but I have fewer differences with them than with Arminian non-Baptists.

 

[Jerome]

Spurgeon, encouraging the reading of Calvin, as quoted in the Commenting and Commentaries thread:

It would not be possible for me too earnestly to press upon you the importance of reading the expositions of that prince among men , John Calvin !... He was no trimmer and pruner of texts . He gave their meaning as far as he knew it . His honest intention was to translate the Hebrew and the Greek originals as accurately as he possibly could , and then to give the meaning which would naturally be conveyed by such Greek and Hebrew words . He labored , in fact , to declare not his own mind upon the Spirit's words , but the mind of the Spirit as couched in those words .

Of course, left out in the above quote (where the ellipses are, ironically right before where Spurgeon says Calvin was no trimmer and pruner of texts) are Spurgeon's words:

In his expositions he is not always what moderns would call Calvinistic: that is to say, where Scripture maintains the doctrine of predestination and grace he flinches in no degree, but inasmuch as some Scriptures bear the impress of human free action and responsibility, he does not shun to expound their meaning in all fairness and integrity.

 

[Tater77]

I have a hard time with Calvinism since my Salvation experience was more Arminian in nature.

I resisted Grace for many years.......
I made a choice.......

I guess you could call me a 4 point Arminian and a 1 point Calvinist agreeing with the perseverance of the saints.

I agree with roughly half of Calvin's works, maybe 2/3.

 

[Jim1999]

It is impossible to embrace any points of Calvinism and still espouse the absolute sovereignty of God. This is the prime doctrine of Calvinism. The other points flow from absolute sovereignty. You cannot embrace doctrines on one's personal experience. That is Barthian, not Calvinism. The word of God becomes the Word of God as one experiences it. This takes you nowhere and leaves you there.

The so-called free will of man falls under the absolute sovereignty of God and is called the permissive will of God. You move and have your being under His permissive will, of which Jonah is a prime example. He denied God's will with God's permission until God said no!

Under absolute free will of humankind, you cannot embrace the perseverance of the saints. We do not persevere on our own accord. We persevere by God's grace and His sovereign power to hold us.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Tom Butler]

I have a hard time with Calvinism since my Salvation experience was more Arminian in nature.

I resisted Grace for many years.......
I made a choice.......

I guess you could call me a 4 point Arminian and a 1 point Calvinist agreeing with the perseverance of the saints.

I agree with roughly half of Calvin's works, maybe 2/3.

I don't see "I resisted grace..." as conflicting with Calvinism. In fact, it's quite consistent.

Same with "I made a choice..."

The debate is over the question, what caused you to quit resisting? And, why did your desires change? Why did your heart of stone suddenly change to a heart of flesh? Who gets the credit for that?

I doubt if you would claim that you decided to confess Christ as Lord independently of the preaching of the gospel, independently of the convicting by the Holy Spirit. So, what triggered your change of heart?

 

[webdog]

Do thread that are a year or older have to be regenerated first before they can be responded to?

 

[Rippon]

It is impossible to embrace any points of Calvinism and still espouse the absolute sovereignty of God.

You meant : It is impossible to embrace any points of Clvinism without espousing the absolute sovereignty of God.

 

[Rippon]

Do thread [sic]that are a year or older have to be regenerated first before they can be responded to?

Yes, they have to be.

I look upon reviving old threads as doing my part for the improvement of the environment. It's like recycling perfectly acceptable things that were discarded but still valuable. Why waste valuable cyber space with more threads when certain old ones are quite usable?

 

[Jim1999]

No. I meant what I said..It is impossible to simple accept one point of Calvinism and reject other points and still accept the absolute sovereignty of God.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[OldRegular]

No. I meant what I said..It is impossible to simple accept one point of Calvinism and reject other points and still accept the absolute sovereignty of God.

Cheers,

Jim

Jim

You are correct. We have a lot of one point [Perseverance of the Saints] Calvinists posting on this Forum but I don't know that any claim to accept the absolute sovereignty of God.

 

[webdog]

No. I meant what I said..It is impossible to simple accept one point of Calvinism and reject other points and still accept the absolute sovereignty of God.

Cheers,

Jim

You have just shunned quite a few of the 4 pointers here by that statement...

 

[Jim1999]

I didn't shun anyone. I stated a basic fact of Calvinism verses variations of steps. I seldom ever get personal or call people names. It is a theological viewpoint.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[webdog]

I didn't shun anyone. I stated a basic fact of Calvinism verses variations of steps. I seldom ever get personal or call people names. It is a theological viewpoint.

Cheers,

Jim

I happen to agree that all points stand and fall together, but there are a number of 4 pointers here that will disagree with us.

 

[Jim1999]

I agree there are variations on board, and each one is entitled to their viewpoint.

The point is that the basis on which Calvin developed his viewpoints was the absolute sovereignty of God, and everything else stood or fell on that point.

The five points were developed after Calvin as a defence against Arminianism.
Even Calvin changed some of his views demonstrated in his Institutes and were expressed in later volumes such as his commentary on Romans. The Institutes were his first books.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[OldRegular]

You have just shunned quite a few of the 4 pointers here by that statement...

Just what is a 4 point Calvinist? Which one do they leave out?

 

[Rippon]

Even Calvin changed some of his views demonstrated in his Institutes and were expressed in later volumes such as his commentary on Romans. The Institutes were his first books.

What views did Calvin change, specifically?

You are aware that Calvin updated and enlarged his Institutes over the years, aren't you? His last edition was in 1559 --just 5 years before his death.

His commentary on Romans was at the early stage of his ministry -- not the latter part.