My Approach to Calvinism

[webdog]

I remember when I was into all the debates and so on---that theological adrenaline rush.

Now I don't even bother that much, whether here or in blogosphere.

I've worked out the five points of Calvinism, the doctrines of grace, against Scripture over and over.

They are there. When I encounter them in my teaching and preaching, I just state the obvious, without the labels, and just move on.

Have fun debating! :thumbs:

On one hand I can see your point, but on the other hand I think it is a dangerous thing to shut our hearts and think we have "arrived". If it were so easy as to just "work out the 5 points against Scripture" there would be no debate in the first place, and everyone would ether be a cal or non cal. When I work out the 5 ponts against Scripture, I see some truth...but much that is not truth. That is why after seriously considering the calvinist position a few years back, I cannot accept the system as soteriological truth.

 

[TCGreek]

On one hand I can see your point, but on the other hand I think it is a dangerous thing to shut our hearts and think we have "arrived". If it were so easy as to just "work out the 5 points against Scripture" there would be no debate in the first place, and everyone would ether be a cal or non cal. When I work out the 5 ponts against Scripture, I see some truth...but much that is not truth. That is why after seriously considering the calvinist position a few years back, I cannot accept the system as soteriological truth.

Webdog, I see your point too. But what is so wrong with a person coming to a solid conviction on a matter even if it is not without its difficulties?

That's how I feel about Calvinism. I don't agree with every argument used by fellow Calvinism, but as an understanding of soteriology, I find more answer in it.

We all adhere to some systematic theology at one point or the other, but most people want to deny the same of Calvinism.

I'm not saying that as a system of thought that it is perfect.

 

[TCGreek]

I can think of our very important reason --- "UNITY." I can think of another -- so some can get rid of their "wood, hay, and stubble" before the judgment seat of Christ makes them look like the 2 foolish "little pigs" (I have this theory that the story of the 3 little pigs is a "take off" in some way of the judgment scene in 1Cor 3:13.).

1. And that's your take on the matter.

If you say you don't agree with all of Calvinism, then what does that make it to you -- "cocktail information?" Isn't it just possible that the whole thing ought to be "torched?"

2. I never said that the DOG were not biblical, in my opinion. Some of the arguments used, not all, I find misleading.

Calvinism, like Catholicism before it, is a "working model." It is the best they could do with the information they had. Unfortunately, it has been elevated to the status of "gospel" some even averring that it IS the gospel of Jesus Christ.

TC, it's a "working model." If we take the parts that are right along and the parts that aren't, we have a better model and we don't have a flawed model anymore. I am proposing alterations that more truly reflect what "scripture alone" says. Mine is not scripture + Calvinism, nor is it scripture + the Book of Mormon, nor is it scripture + tradition, nor any other competing source.

3. We all have "working models."

Surely admitting that the DoG has things with which you disagree, you are willing to investigate whether we ought to have a new "model," no?

4. Skypair, you need to get it! I see the DOG all over Scripture. I have trouble with some of the arguments used.

I have this notion that it "emerged" from the Reform/Calvinist theology. Obviously you wouldn't find it "all bad."

5. That great antagonist of Calvinism.

One other thing came to mind yesterday. I was watching an abortion debate on Ankerburg where the respondents agreed that "abortion was the taking of "innocent life." But think about it -- this gets right to the heart of the issue of sin nature/original sin/total depravity, doesn't it? Couldn't a Calvinist be used to say that, no, no flesh is "innocent" -- not even in the womb -- and, therefore, abortion is OK?

skypair

6. The great antagonist of Calvinism.

 

[Amy.G]

I don't agree with every argument used by Calvinists. I think some of them are misleading.

What specific arguments do you find misleading?

 

[skypair]

1. And that's your take on the matter.

But that is NOT what Paul prods us to do in Eph 4?? Is that what you are saying? That I am willing for "unity" but you are not and, furthermore, you don't believe that the Bible exhorts believers to UNITY?

Or are you saying that your wrong theology and my right theology will not be an issue at the Bema??

I have a real problem, though, with one who dogmatically sticks to arguments that he/she KNOWS are both "misleading" and divisive. I should think that such an one would like to clear up the "misleading" aspects of their own theology in order to bring unity than he/she would like to start threads knowing that they will be divisive.

2. I never said that the DOG were not biblical, in my opinion. Some of the arguments used, not all, I find misleading.

Would you not like to "unencumber" yourself of either the theology or of the specific arguments that "taint" all the rest of your constant adherence to DoG? What kind of theologian would you say I was if I told you -- which I never have -- that there were elements of free will that were misleading of the truth? Do you want to be called a Calvinist in spite of the faults that even you see in it? How many points have to be wrong before you say, "Know what? I give up. I can't keep saying I am a Calvinist and keep 'voting' with the free willers?"

At just what extent of correctness-incorrectness do you divest yourself of false theology? Do you think it not worth abandoning for the fact that it has TOTALLY misread prophecy? dispensations? sin nature? predestination?

3. We all have "working models."

Well, that's a start. :laugh: And I'm not saying (which you seem to be fearing) that our unity ought to be "ecumenicism." I am calling for unity of true believers. Do you not feel drawn from Calvinism (though for the tenor of your posts lately, I think I know your answer)?

IOW, if you were to change YOUR "working model" even slightly from Calvinism, what would you change?

Lesson in model building: Calvin was "working off of" a previous model, Catholicism. For all his "alterations," many of us believe it wasn't so much of a "reformation" as it was a "repositioning" of a few of the "deck chairs" on the Titanic -- a "revision," a "repackaging." Sure, the "model" was changed, but it was neither qualitatively nor quantitatively enough!

4. Skypair, you need to get it! I see the DOG all over Scripture. I have trouble with some of the arguments used.

They're invalid, right? What are they? Why do you have trouble with them? Is it scriptural trouble? emotionaly trouble? logical trouble?

How about this: Free will is all over scripture. I have NO trouble with ANY arguments used because both grace and free will are comprehended by it.

5. That great antagonist of Calvinism.

Friend, YOU made Calvinist the topic of this thread. If you had said, "My Approach to Mormonism," then Mormonism would be the "great antagonist!" The truth is that any theology that puts itself at odds with gospel of Jesus Christ is "the antagonist."

TC, I love ya to death, man. You're starting to show some interest in reasoning together rather than the dogmatic positions you used to put on display daily towards your brothers and sisters. And I, too, have been dogmatic for the truth BUT I have been pragmatic where we could clearly agree IF we would just be using the same terminology.

Another brother of yours tries to talk about love as if it had many definitions depending on who the object of the love is (elect or world). Love is love! It ain't the same as lust or respecter of persons or yada/intercourse or any of that! Jesus didn't love Judas any less nor more than He loves you and me -- saved children of God! The more responsive we are, the more He will BLESS us but His love is an absolute quality! It's either there (God loves everyone) or it's not (God hates sin)! He "foreloves" everyone if that is what you want Rom 8:29 to say OR He foreknows everyone but predestinates BELIEVERS as His omniscience and omnipotence would tell us is also true!

skypair

 

[TCGreek]

What specific arguments do you find misleading?

For example, I believe in Particular Atonement but not many Calvinists handling of John 3:16.

I don't think anyone needs to make "the world" there the "world of the elect" only as many Calvinists have done.

 

[TCGreek]

But that is NOT what Paul prods us to do in Eph 4?? Is that what you are saying? That I am willing for "unity" but you are not and, furthermore, you don't believe that the Bible exhorts believers to UNITY?

1. Skypair, my brother, I have no problem with Eph 4:4-6. I celebrate it with all believers who have embraced that text dearly.

Or are you saying that your wrong theology and my right theology will not be an issue at the Bema??

2. Well, you have already made a definitive judgment. Why the Bema? :thumbs:

I have a real problem, though, with one who dogmatically sticks to arguments that he/she KNOWS are both "misleading" and divisive. I should think that such an one would like to clear up the "misleading" aspects of their own theology in order to bring unity than he/she would like to start threads knowing that they will be divisive.

3. The misleading arguments are various handling of texts, not all of what Scripture has to say about a particular topic.

Would you not like to "unencumber" yourself of either the theology or of the specific arguments that "taint" all the rest of your constant adherence to DoG? What kind of theologian would you say I was if I told you -- which I never have -- that there were elements of free will that were misleading of the truth? Do you want to be called a Calvinist in spite of the faults that even you see in it? How many points have to be wrong before you say, "Know what? I give up. I can't keep saying I am a Calvinist and keep 'voting' with the free willers?"

4. I remain a cool, committed Calvinist.

At just what extent of correctness-incorrectness do you divest yourself of false theology? Do you think it not worth abandoning for the fact that it has TOTALLY misread prophecy? dispensations? sin nature? predestination?

5. I've already put the doctrines of grace to the test and have still come away a committed Calvinist. I don't see the contradictions you see.

Well, that's a start. :laugh: And I'm not saying (which you seem to be fearing) that our unity ought to be "ecumenicism." I am calling for unity of true believers. Do you not feel drawn from Calvinism (though for the tenor of your posts lately, I think I know your answer)?

6. Not all the arguments for Calvinism I'm in favor of.

IOW, if you were to change YOUR "working model" even slightly from Calvinism, what would you change?

7. The Bible is not a systematic theology, though it is theological.

Lesson in model building: Calvin was "working off of" a previous model, Catholicism. For all his "alterations," many of us believe it wasn't so much of a "reformation" as it was a "repositioning" of a few of the "deck chairs" on the Titanic -- a "revision," a "repackaging." Sure, the "model" was changed, but it was neither qualitatively nor quantitatively enough!

8. I owe Calvin nothing, except the pejorative "Calvinism."

They're invalid, right? What are they? Why do you have trouble with them? Is it scriptural trouble? emotionaly trouble? logical trouble?

9. Am I before YOUR Bema?

How about this: Free will is all over scripture. I have NO trouble with ANY arguments used because both grace and free will are comprehended by it.

10. I do believe in free will.

Friend, YOU made Calvinist the topic of this thread. If you had said, "My Approach to Mormonism," then Mormonism would be the "great antagonist!" The truth is that any theology that puts itself at odds with gospel of Jesus Christ is "the antagonist."

11. I haven't found Calvinism to be against the gospel of Jesus Christ.

TC, I love ya to death, man. You're starting to show some interest in reasoning together rather than the dogmatic positions you used to put on display daily towards your brothers and sisters. And I, too, have been dogmatic for the truth BUT I have been pragmatic where we could clearly agree IF we would just be using the same terminology.

12. Until Scripture convince me otherwise, I will not surrender the doctrines of grace. :thumbs:

Another brother of yours tries to talk about love as if it had many definitions depending on who the object of the love is (elect or world). Love is love! It ain't the same as lust or respecter of persons or yada/intercourse or any of that! Jesus didn't love Judas any less nor more than He loves you and me -- saved children of God! The more responsive we are, the more He will BLESS us but His love is an absolute quality! It's either there (God loves everyone) or it's not (God hates sin)! He "foreloves" everyone if that is what you want Rom 8:29 to say OR He foreknows everyone but predestinates BELIEVERS as His omniscience and omnipotence would tell us is also true!

skypair

13. I'm a Calvinist by choice. I'm not responsible for any other Calvinist on this Board.

 

[Amy.G]

For example, I believe in Particular Atonement but not many Calvinists handling of John 3:16.

I don't think anyone needs to make "the world" there the "world of the elect" only as many Calvinists have done.

So you believe that Christ died for every person in the world? Only those who believe are the elect?

I agree with you.

That doesn't sound like Calvinism.

 

[Grasshopper]

So you believe that Christ died for every person in the world? Only those who believe are the elect?

I agree with you.

That doesn't sound like Calvinism.

Did Christ take God's wrath for every person in the world upon himself on the cross?

 

[Rippon]

When I work out the 5 ponts against Scripture, I see some truth...but much that is not truth. That is why after seriously considering the calvinist position a few years back, I cannot accept the system as soteriological truth.

Well maybe you have worked out the five "ponts";but you're missing the larger point.

You can't accept the system as soteriological truth although your pastor does.You willingly sit under his ministry.

 

[Amy.G]

Did Christ take God's wrath for every person in the world upon himself on the cross?

Christ was the propitiation for our sins. This means that He satisfied God's requirement of justice.

Rom 3:25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,
Rom 3:26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Christ's sacrifice of Himself satisfied God's wrath against sin, but it is through our faith that we are justified.

 

[Grasshopper]

Christ was the propitiation for our sins. This means that He satisfied God's requirement of justice.

Rom 3:25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,
Rom 3:26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Christ's sacrifice of Himself satisfied God's wrath against sin, but it is through our faith that we are justified.

So is that a yes or a no?

 

[Amy.G]

So is that a yes or a no?

As far as the propitiation goes, yes. But faith in that propitiation made by Christ, is essential for salvation.

 

[Grasshopper]

As far as the propitiation goes, yes. But faith in that propitiation made by Christ, is essential for salvation.

So all men had their sins propitiated at the cross.

 

[Amy.G]

So all men had their sins propitiated at the cross.

1Jo 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

So, yes.

 

[Allan]

So all men had their sins propitiated at the cross.

Yes, if one understands what propitiation is.

The propitiation is that sacrifice made toward God that has satified judicially the penalty of and for SIN. However, this was not imparted to any man yet - the propitiation r offering was made and God found it completely acceptabel. And scripture states that the propitiation is only received or imparted 'by faith' - Rom 3:25

Thus the sacrifice of Christ is made for sin toward all men but is only applied to whosoever believes that God is satified with Christ's work and receives that sacrifice on his behalf - will be be justified, sanctified, and made righteous - saved!

 

[webdog]

Well maybe you have worked out the five "ponts";but you're missing the larger point.

You can't accept the system as soteriological truth although your pastor does.You willingly sit under his ministry.

Your point? Being the member of a local church entails more than the exact soteriological beliefs of the pastor, does it not?

 

[Rippon]

Your point? Being the member of a local church entails more than the exact soteriological beliefs of the pastor, does it not?

I didn't say nor did I imply that one must follow the "exact soteriological beliefs of the pastor".Thos are your words.No one follows anyone -- exactly.But you knew that when you typed it didn't you?No,an individual should be in general agreement with one's pastor upon the subject.Otherwise you should not be a part of that body of believers.

 

[Rippon]

At just what extent of correctness-incorrectness do you divest yourself of false theology? Do you think it not worth abandoning for the fact that it has TOTALLY misread prophecy? dispensations? sin nature? predestination?

You are the one guy to have the gall to come up with such absurd stuff.Do have even a clue that Calvinists cover the spectrum regarding eschatology?I think they have a pretty good handle on the sin nature and predestination.

Lesson in model building: Calvin was "working off of" a previous model, Catholicism. For all his "alterations," many of us believe it wasn't so much of a "reformation" as it was a "repositioning" of a few of the "deck chairs" on the Titanic -- a "revision," a "repackaging." Sure, the "model" was changed, but it was neither qualitatively nor quantitatively enough!

You are in dire need of Church History lessons among your other privations.Could you please type something of substance once in a while?Why don't you refrain from typing on a subject when you don't have an iota of knowledge about it?When you do have a speck of data you spout-off such biased tripe it is beyond the pale.You have benefited from the Reformation in ways that you can't appreciate.It was a God-ordained Revival of mammoth proportions.By that I am not suggesting that sin didn't enter at any point.Even the Great Awakening was affected by sin despite God's undeniable Hand in the events.

He "foreloves" everyone if that is what you want Rom 8:29 to say OR He foreknows everyone but predestinates BELIEVERS as His omniscience and omnipotence would tell us is also true!

It's certainly foreloved.The Lord has set His love in eternity past on His own elect ones.The Lord is the one who turns the hearts of His people and draws them to Himself.The Lord doesn't have to prognosticate.He doesn't have to wait on the will of man to decide "Well,yeah -- I think I have the capacity on my own to turn to God."Then in that silly view of yours God thinks "Good! That one is just the fellow I will foreknow."

 

[TCGreek]

So you believe that Christ died for every person in the world? Only those who believe are the elect?

I agree with you.

That doesn't sound like Calvinism.

Amy, the text says that God loved the sinful world of humanity so much that he sent his Son.