Calvinism Chart

[Osage Bluestem]

Interesting, but no, thank you.
I refuse the label, no offense meant.
Most here in the board, including the out and out Calvinists, disagree with me on point 6.
Don't you ?

I agree with it.

The elect are predestined to salvation and the victory over sin and death was won for them at calvary.

Ephesians 1:4-5
4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to sonship[c] through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—

The elect receive the atonement through faith after regeneration at the time of God's choosing, but it was promised them before the world began, secured at calvary, and received through the gift of faith that allows us to know Christ and have assurance in him and his work.

 

[Andy T.]

I voted for Low Calvinism because it looked lonely. I am really between Low and the Moderate beliefs described above, with some qualifiers. Probably voted against my better judgment, because these labels can often be a detriment and/or used against you in ways not pleasant.

 

[pinoybaptist]

I agree with it.

The elect are predestined to salvation and the victory over sin and death was won for them at calvary.

Ephesians 1:4-5
4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to sonship[c] through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—

The elect receive the atonement through faith after regeneration at the time of God's choosing, but it was promised them before the world began, secured at calvary, and received through the gift of faith that allows us to know Christ and have assurance in him and his work.

Thank you.
Encouraging to find one who doesn't subtly call me a heretic and instead agrees with me, though my POV differs ever so slightly.
will come back for more if I'm let off early from work.
been asked to work OT on my day off due to some biggie company bringing in their people to add to those screaming in our ears. lol.

 

[menageriekeeper]

I voted "American Baptist" but I'm gonna lean with the newbie and state that I have some Arminian leanings that I haven't fully decided on.

Ya'll aren't surprised are you?

 

[preachinjesus]

As for the OP, you know there are more options than just Calvinist or Arminian...

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I find myself disliking the Dutch form of Calvinism as being too legalistic but Im more akin to Celtic & (dare i say it) English Reformed beliefs. Intellectually I have a difficult time with Limited Atonement/ But there an again, I can think my way through it & conceptualize that its God & not man that is defining that call. Most importantly though is the belief in God's TOTAL Sovereignty which I fervently believe in. The Grace thing is something that God has personally proven to me so I have skin in the game to prove that one. In reading the Conversion of Augustine where he told the Lord "Not Yet"; Not Yet Lord, I am not yet ready to relinquish my worldly possessions.....Boy, do I identify with that! And in Augies "Confessions" where he always relied on himself & his free will & did not understand the unspeakable joy of total surrender & Gods sovereignty.....I understand that as well. Then when George Whitefield asked me to examine my unbelief (a belief born out of my own will to control & to manage) I realized at that moment that I had both offended & never truly believed with all my being, thus my sin of unbelief. So where that puts me in relation to your charts & points system, heaven only knows....but I am convinced By Grace alone, thru Faith alone, In Christ alone. Praise God.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

​

As for the OP, you know there are more options than just Calvinist or Arminian...

Yes. There is Thomist, Molinist, Lutheran, and "custom"

 

[saturneptune]

I voted "American Baptist" but I'm gonna lean with the newbie and state that I have some Arminian leanings that I haven't fully decided on.

Ya'll aren't surprised are you?

How do American Baptists differ from the SBC or Independents? I really do not know much about them.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

I find myself disliking the Dutch form of Calvinism as being too legalistic but Im more akin to Celtic & (dare i say it) English Reformed beliefs. Intellectually I have a difficult time with Limited Atonement/ But there an again, I can think my way through it & conceptualize that its God & not man that is defining that call. Most importantly though is the belief in God's TOTAL Sovereignty which I fervently believe in. The Grace thing is something that God has personally proven to me so I have skin in the game to prove that one. In reading the Conversion of Augustine where he told the Lord "Not Yet"; Not Yet Lord, I am not yet ready to relinquish my worldly possessions.....Boy, do I identify with that! And in Augies "Confessions" where he always relied on himself & his free will & did not understand the unspeakable joy of total surrender & Gods sovereignty.....I understand that as well. Then when George Whitefield asked me to examine my unbelief (a belief born out of my own will to control & to manage) I realized at that moment that I had both offended & never truly believed with all my being, thus my sin of unbelief. So where that puts me in relation to your charts & points system, heaven only knows....but I am convinced By Grace alone, thru Faith alone, In Christ alone. Praise God.

Wow—you actually do have a deeper theological side—I was beginning to wonder if u were simply the comic relief on the BB—-buts that’s pretty good stuff u just wrote!

 

[Osage Bluestem]

but I am convinced By Grace alone, thru Faith alone, In Christ alone. Praise God.

That puts us on the same north bound train.

 

[glfredrick]

Interesting, but no, thank you.
I refuse the label, no offense meant.
Most here in the board, including the out and out Calvinists, disagree with me on point 6.
Don't you ?

I do... I failed to mention that point.

I'll save discussion for another thread.

 

[glfredrick]

I agree with it.

The elect are predestined to salvation and the victory over sin and death was won for them at calvary.

Ephesians 1:4-5
4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to sonship[c] through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—

The elect receive the atonement through faith after regeneration at the time of God's choosing, but it was promised them before the world began, secured at calvary, and received through the gift of faith that allows us to know Christ and have assurance in him and his work.

That's not what he means... He is saying that no evangelism is necessary because it is all done at the Atonement, which means that the Bible is wrong when it tells us to go out and evangelize.

 

[pinoybaptist]

That's not what he means... He is saying that no evangelism is necessary because it is all done at the Atonement, which means that the Bible is wrong when it tells us to go out and evangelize.

you're wrong.
no evangelism if the point of evangelism is to get people eternally saved.
if the point of evangelism is to bring the elect, already redeemed and eternally saved, to gospel salvation, then yes, we evangelise.

and the Bible is never wrong.
it is the interpreters of what is being said that often are wrong.

find me a post of mine where I said the Bible is wrong, and I won't accuse you of subtility.

 

[Jerome]

Please define gospel salvation.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Please define gospel salvation.

would love to, but that might throw this thread off track and be construed as disrespectful.
I'll pm it to you.
be patient. lol.

 

[glfredrick]

you're wrong.
no evangelism if the point of evangelism is to get people eternally saved.
if the point of evangelism is to bring the elect, already redeemed and eternally saved, to gospel salvation, then yes, we evangelise.

and the Bible is never wrong.
it is the interpreters of what is being said that often are wrong.

find me a post of mine where I said the Bible is wrong, and I won't accuse you of subtility.

I'm not even trying to be subtle. As I've said before to others who think me doing that, I speak my mind and say what I wish to say. I have no problem words.

When I suggest that you have problems with the biblical view of evangelism, that is because you do not see evangelism as a response to all people in the nature that Paul, Peter, John, Luke, etc., all describe evangelism in the Word. More than that, you utterly disregard Jesus command in the Great Commission, given once in each gospel and once again in Acts. Jesus did not indicate that we only bring in the elect. He was very clear that we go to "panta ta enthnae" (all peoples or all ethnic groups) and do what He said to do. While I grasp the fact that we can only harvest the elect, we cannot preach or evangelize or missionize to only the elect, simply because WE do not know who are the elect.

Also, the elect are not already saved. That is a huge issue... "Salvation" as described in your theology as merely the elect flies in the face of everything else the Scriptures say about the issue. In fact, "salvation" is not just one thing. As I've carefully explained a number of times in threads that you read, salvation is more than election. It is also effectual call, adoption, regeneration, faith/repentance, justification, sanctification, perseverance, and glorification. Ignoring all those parts of the totality of salvation leads to incorrect and un-biblical theology.

PLEASE NOTE: Unlike some, I do not hold that incorrect or un-biblical theology is a damnable offense. It is just incorrect or un-biblical theology. If God indeed brings the elect to salvation as we both believe, holding an incorrect view of something does not damn. It is just an incorrect view, for we are not saved by our views or by our actions, but by the Lord. An incorrect view may hinder some things, but it is not a deal breaker (unless one holds to human-based salvation, aka Pelagianism where the true gospel is not even heard).

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Can I make a suggestion .... Add "Humanism" to the list

 

[pinoybaptist]

I'm not even trying to be subtle. As I've said before to others who think me doing that, I speak my mind and say what I wish to say. I have no problem words.

When I suggest that you have problems with the biblical view of evangelism, that is because you do not see evangelism as a response to all people in the nature that Paul, Peter, John, Luke, etc., all describe evangelism in the Word. More than that, you utterly disregard Jesus command in the Great Commission, given once in each gospel and once again in Acts. Jesus did not indicate that we only bring in the elect. He was very clear that we go to "panta ta enthnae" (all peoples or all ethnic groups) and do what He said to do. While I grasp the fact that we can only harvest the elect, we cannot preach or evangelize or missionize to only the elect, simply because WE do not know who are the elect.
Also, the elect are not already saved. That is a huge issue... "Salvation" as described in your theology as merely the elect flies in the face of everything else the Scriptures say about the issue. In fact, "salvation" is not just one thing. As I've carefully explained a number of times in threads that you read, salvation is more than election. It is also effectual call, adoption, regeneration, faith/repentance, justification, sanctification, perseverance, and glorification. Ignoring all those parts of the totality of salvation leads to incorrect and un-biblical theology.

PLEASE NOTE: Unlike some, I do not hold that incorrect or un-biblical theology is a damnable offense. It is just incorrect or un-biblical theology. If God indeed brings the elect to salvation as we both believe, holding an incorrect view of something does not damn. It is just an incorrect view, for we are not saved by our views or by our actions, but by the Lord. An incorrect view may hinder some things, but it is not a deal breaker (unless one holds to human-based salvation, aka Pelagianism where the true gospel is not even heard).

I will be glad to move this comment to another thread I will start in deference to the OP so as not to hijack it.

Watch for it.

IT'S COMINGGGG !!!:flower:

 

[glfredrick]

I will be glad to move this comment to another thread I will start in deference to the OP so as not to hijack it.

Watch for it.

IT'S COMINGGGG !!!:flower:

Sounds good to me. I prefer to not further hijack this thread as well.

 

[J.D.]

Put me down for "high" Calvinism, insomuch that I have a lot of theological affinity with Beza, Clark and Pink.

Qualifiers:

1. The gospel should be preached to all without discrimination.
2. The gospel is preached to the nonelect for their condemnation; God is not "trying" to save them; therefore, I have some concerns with "well meant" offer.
3. God's love for the lost is at best a type of pity, but in no way is familial love.
4. God is not the author of paradox.
5. I believe in reprobation, but the inactive kind - i.e. God simply leaves sinners to their own destruction - Although He intends their reprobation, he does not directly cause their reprobation.