I am neither Calvinist or Dispensational...but I'd like to see you tryin support argument against rjprince, or Pastor Larry (who are) to name a few if they were still around.
Example:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=2046
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is Calvinism "mainly" a Sotierology System Of Theology?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
I am neither Calvinist or Dispensational...but I'd like to see you tryin support argument against rjprince, or Pastor Larry (who are) to name a few if they were still around.
Example:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=2046
For sure! Go into any OPC church & talk about baptism...:laugh:
Rippon, you make some wonderful points. I'm glad someone could articulate these points...
To be a thoroughgoing Calvinist one must accept Covenant theology. Otherwise, you're just fooling yourself.
There are too many problems, theologically, that arise when one attempts to impute, say dispensationalism, into the Calvinist matrix. You have a serious issue with covenantal language and reconciling the soteriological distinction between the Old Testament means of grace and the New Testament expression for starters. More on this below.
But everybody claims "Scripture" as the source of their authority don't they?
Say I'm a Barthian, I claim the Word of God. Say I'm a Classical Dispensationalist (a Darbian) I claim the Bible. Say I'm a Bultmannian, I claim the (demythologized) Scriptures. This list goes on and on...so we can't say that "Calvinsts" claim Scripture solely. Though that is the final authority for their system, they still must adhere to the pathways of their founder, Jean Calvin.
Though I appreciate the encourage to remain within acceptable boundaries, the truth is that if you claim to be a "Calvinist" you are following a system of theology developed by and proposed by Jean Calvin. Though Scripture is the ultimate authority for the claims of the theology, one cannot be a thoroughgoing Calvinist and dismiss points of Calvinism that Calvin made.
His name is on the theological system. It isn't so difficult to imagine that we must stay lashed to some semblance of identity if we claim the name/system.
JF is attempting to claim aspects of Calvinism for his system (wrongly denoting them as Doctrine of Grace) while also attempting to fuse a form of dispensationalist eschatology while also attempting to hold to a Warfieldian view of Scripture (I've picked this up from our interaction.) Well you can amalgamate any number of systems you desire, just don't call it something its not.
The Reformed circles are sort of like Baptists in America. Lots of conversations. Yet certain things remain essential.
The bottom line is you can't hold to three or four points of Calvinism, you can't change the system, you can't approach his hermeneutic dispensationally and still claim to be a Calvinist. Read The Institutes and his commentaries, none of that stuff works with his system. Jean Calvin's theological proposal is rightly classified by Jacob Arminius (his greatest student) in the five points noted at Dordt. You can't get away from it.
I guess my challenge is, then, show me how, in all of Calvin's work, one can be dispensational and remain coherent with his theological prolegomena.
To be a thoroughgoing Calvinist one must accept Covenant theology. Otherwise, you're just fooling yourself.
There are too many problems, theologically, that arise when one attempts to impute, say dispensationalism, into the Calvinist matrix. You have a serious issue with covenantal language and reconciling the soteriological distinction between the Old Testament means of grace and the New Testament expression for starters. More on this below.
Rippon said:
But everybody claims "Scripture" as the source of their authority don't they?
Say I'm a Barthian, I claim the Word of God. Say I'm a Classical Dispensationalist (a Darbian) I claim the Bible. Say I'm a Bultmannian, I claim the (demythologized) Scriptures. This list goes on and on...so we can't say that "Calvinsts" claim Scripture solely. Though that is the final authority for their system, they still must adhere to the pathways of their founder, Jean Calvin.
Though I appreciate the encourage to remain within acceptable boundaries, the truth is that if you claim to be a "Calvinist" you are following a system of theology developed by and proposed by Jean Calvin. Though Scripture is the ultimate authority for the claims of the theology, one cannot be a thoroughgoing Calvinist and dismiss points of Calvinism that Calvin made.
His name is on the theological system. It isn't so difficult to imagine that we must stay lashed to some semblance of identity if we claim the name/system.
JF is attempting to claim aspects of Calvinism for his system (wrongly denoting them as Doctrine of Grace) while also attempting to fuse a form of dispensationalist eschatology while also attempting to hold to a Warfieldian view of Scripture (I've picked this up from our interaction.) Well you can amalgamate any number of systems you desire, just don't call it something its not.
Rippon said:
The Reformed circles are sort of like Baptists in America. Lots of conversations. Yet certain things remain essential.
The bottom line is you can't hold to three or four points of Calvinism, you can't change the system, you can't approach his hermeneutic dispensationally and still claim to be a Calvinist. Read The Institutes and his commentaries, none of that stuff works with his system. Jean Calvin's theological proposal is rightly classified by Jacob Arminius (his greatest student) in the five points noted at Dordt. You can't get away from it.
I guess my challenge is, then, show me how, in all of Calvin's work, one can be dispensational and remain coherent with his theological prolegomena.
Another worthy question. I'd simply get the conversation started by pointing out a) that Calvin recognized the Church was the New Covenant extension of Israel, b) they can't hold to a dispensational matrix and have a coherent soteriology across both testaments, and c) their basis for election necessitates a covenantal theology.
yes, believe tht you and I are in agreement on the area of salvation, especially as regarding Election!
That was/is my basic problem in all of this discussion!
can one be considered to be holding to a cal vie won Election/salvation, yet not become a "Reformed" baptist!
can hold to specific cal theology as reagrds to Sotierology, yet still remain say dispy in eschatology!
Rippon, you make some wonderful points. I'm glad someone could articulate these points...
To be a thoroughgoing Calvinist one must accept Covenant theology. Otherwise, you're just fooling yourself.
There are too many problems, theologically, that arise when one attempts to impute, say dispensationalism, into the Calvinist matrix. You have a serious issue with covenantal language and reconciling the soteriological distinction between the Old Testament means of grace and the New Testament expression for starters. More on this below.
But everybody claims "Scripture" as the source of their authority don't they?
Say I'm a Barthian, I claim the Word of God. Say I'm a Classical Dispensationalist (a Darbian) I claim the Bible. Say I'm a Bultmannian, I claim the (demythologized) Scriptures. This list goes on and on...so we can't say that "Calvinsts" claim Scripture solely. Though that is the final authority for their system, they still must adhere to the pathways of their founder, Jean Calvin.
Though I appreciate the encourage to remain within acceptable boundaries, the truth is that if you claim to be a "Calvinist" you are following a system of theology developed by and proposed by Jean Calvin. Though Scripture is the ultimate authority for the claims of the theology, one cannot be a thoroughgoing Calvinist and dismiss points of Calvinism that Calvin made.
His name is on the theological system. It isn't so difficult to imagine that we must stay lashed to some semblance of identity if we claim the name/system.
JF is attempting to claim aspects of Calvinism for his system (wrongly denoting them as Doctrine of Grace) while also attempting to fuse a form of dispensationalist eschatology while also attempting to hold to a Warfieldian view of Scripture (I've picked this up from our interaction.) Well you can amalgamate any number of systems you desire, just don't call it something its not.
The Reformed circles are sort of like Baptists in America. Lots of conversations. Yet certain things remain essential.
The bottom line is you can't hold to three or four points of Calvinism, you can't change the system, you can't approach his hermeneutic dispensationally and still claim to be a Calvinist. Read The Institutes and his commentaries, none of that stuff works with his system. Jean Calvin's theological proposal is rightly classified by Jacob Arminius (his greatest student) in the five points noted at Dordt. You can't get away from it.
I guess my challenge is, then, show me how, in all of Calvin's work, one can be dispensational and remain coherent with his theological prolegomena.
Maybe its as simple as seeing that while John calvin nailed the biblical view of salvation/Election as it reagrds the Christian , that he missed what thet scriptures also portrayed concerning other asreas such as Eschatology?
As he by mistake had taken his positions to the extremes and denied the biblcal truth that the Lord still saw isreal as having promiesspecific to her, and the Church would have a new Covenat with her..
he could see the overal premise of there being just 1 people of God, under the messiah, yet refused/could not see sperate distinctive plans for each!
his biggest mistake would be to try to have continuity between 2 Covenants in such familarity that the Church became Spiritual isreal, as being new people of God...
Failed to see that there was a clear break/distintion between Old and new Covenants!
glfredrick
New Member
Only one who has yet to read actual Calvin could say what you just said. I doubt that he "failed to see" much of anything.
He did have to make several tough choices in his theology, but that was more becasue he lived in an era where many of the advances in theology that we now take for granted and play with on a discussion board were yet to be formed in any full sense of the word. He was a REFORMER and as such may not have completely developed everything that would come about as a result of his reformational stance. We saw the same things with Luther and other early reformers. Not sure why that is difficult to grasp, other than the fact that so few have actually read the reformers.
will need to reread the Institutes, as has been awhile!
I was trying to think how should have phrased my prior posting on Calvin...
Do appreciate/respect what he was able to discern from the scriptures...
Think was trying to say that in some areas of doctrine, had to "squeeze" meanings not intended from the Bible to fit it into overall theology, and was not able to allow some doctrines to be as the authors intended, but as his system would demand it to be seen as being...
We ALL do that to some degree or another...
Brother, I'm not a Calvinist nor Reformed...but you really need to go and actually read Calvin and do basic theological prolegomena before you can attempt to qualify your theological system in light of criticisms of his. Some of these issues you bring up don't make any sense.
Tolle lege! Tolle lege! Take up and read! Take up and read! Spend you Christmas holiday reading Calvin. Go to CCEL and download his stuff, for free, and read it. The Institues isn't so long that you can't get through it in a week or so.
glfredrick
New Member
Not just the Institutes, but his sermons and commentaries as well. Calvin said way more than what was included in the Institutes. Perhaps the best way to do that without getting bogged down is to get them in electronic format then do key word searches.
This is what Arminius said about Calvin's commentaries:
i know, as when i first read thru his Institute, only took one weekend!
glfredrick
New Member
CEEL also has his commentaries. Read for free.
A word about the Institutes. They were among his first theological writings and went through many corrections. His best writing was his commentary on Romans, which in places differed to the Institutes.
As a Baptist, we also differ considerably from the Institutes, so they do not become a reliable source for our theology.
Just a word of caution when considering "Calvinism". You must, from scripture, determine your line of thinking, when using terms such as "covenant" theology, infant "baptism" and church dogma, amongst other doctrines.
Cheers,
Jim
As a Baptist, we also differ considerably from the Institutes, so they do not become a reliable source for our theology.
Just a word of caution when considering "Calvinism". You must, from scripture, determine your line of thinking, when using terms such as "covenant" theology, infant "baptism" and church dogma, amongst other doctrines.
Cheers,
Jim
It would seem that some might have the system of Calvinism as the prism by which all scriptures would get filtered through....
or that the Institutes would be quoted as much as Paul...
Would say we still need to differiate between a baptist/ Non baptist view on Calvinism, as I fear that the reformed baptists equate their view of reformed only equals Cal, and that Baptists cannot take just TULIP for themselves is in play!
1st Andy answer me this...."Did not Jesus die for the whole human race?"
Answer: No, the Scriptures will not support that idea. Jesus said He came into the world to do the will of His Father, and that will was that He should save all who were given Him (the elect) even before the world began (John 6: 37-39). Jesus came to save HIS PEOPLE from their sins, and He did it (Matt. 1: 21; Rom. 8: 33, 34). He died for His sheep, not for goats (John 10: 15). He died for sons, for the sanctified, for the brethren, for the church, and for the children (Heb. 2: 9-15). He saw the travail of His soul and was satisfied (Isa. 53: 10-12).
2nd question Andy, do Calvinists deny that Christ died for the world ?
Answer: No, they believe that the world for which He died was the world of His elect. The world of souls for which He died do not have their trespasses imputed to them and therefore cannot be condemned (ll Cor. 5: 18-19).
3rd & Last question & I believe it addresses your major concern above, do Calvinists teach that some might want salvation but could not have it because they are not one of the elect?
Answer: No, the man who wants salvation already HAS it. The man who hungers and thirsts (desires it) after righteousness is a blessed character (Matt. 5: 2-6). The alien sinner doesn't want salvation, he doesn't fear God, and he doesn't love God; therefore we conclude that the man who wants salvation, fears God and loves God is a subject of grace (Rom. 3: 11, 18; I John 4: 10) .
Hope that helps you to better understand what we believe about salvation.
Jim,I have pointed this out to you many times. The Institutes did not go through many corrections. He expanded them. In order of publication in Latin only:1536,1539,1543,1550 and 1559.
His commentary on Romans was published in 1540. It did not differ with The Institutes. But if you think so,document some differences please.
Charles Spurgeon may be responsible for this mistaken notion of yours and many Fundamentalists. He said something to the effect that he appreciated the later works of Calvin,when he was well-seasoned--not those of his younger years when he wrote The Institutes.
So you can see where C.H.S. was wrong by what I had said earlier in this post.
Correction:The InstituteS. They are comprised of several volumes. The Battles edition edited by McNeil is 1800 pages.
I sincerely doubt that you read all the contents in just one weekend.If you had devoted 20 hours collectively that means you would have been reading at the rate of roughly 5 pages every three minutes. Calvin's magnum opus cannot be merely scanned.
Another worthy question. I'd simply get the conversation started by pointing out a) that Calvin recognized the Church was the New Covenant extension of Israel, b) they can't hold to a dispensational matrix and have a coherent soteriology across both testaments, and c) their basis for election necessitates a covenantal theology.
I would be inclined to agree with you, although there are times when the Calvinist view of election lines up quite nicely with the Dispensationalist view of a pedigreed type of assurance for the Jews.