Featured 4 Point Calvinism

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A 4 POINT CALVINIST!!!

 

I know self-proclaimed 4-point Calvinists and they wouldn't agree with this list.

There are a few 5-point Calvinists (particularly dispensational Calvinists) who don'

I would be considered at 5-pointer and I believe man has a free will (just not free in the libertarian sense).

Even Armininians (especially Baptists and fundamentalists) don't believe in being "carnal Christians".

Lordship salvation isn't an exclusively 5-point or even Calvinist idea. There are non-Calvinists who subscribe to Lordship salvation and there are 5-point Calvinists who doesn't necessarily embrace LS.

Every orthodox Christian believes repentance is necessary for salvation.

This is the primary difference between a 4-point Calvinist and a 5-point Calvinist.

This isn't a matter of 4-point Calvinism versus 5-point Calvinism but an issue of Free Grace theology versus Lordship Salvation theology.

Similar to response to #8.

You are not a 5-point, 4-point, 3-point, 2-point, or 1-point Calvinist if you believe in synergism.

 

It all sounds like Calvinist wannabe's in my opinion.

The list you provide is interesting but is an aberration. You may enjoy reading a book by R. C. Sproul 'What is Reformed Theology?' It is an excellent read and will clarify the Calvinist position for you fairly concisely.

 

Try "Doctrines of Grace" by James Montgomery Boice

 

I've never heard of a 4 point Calvinist?... Which bears this question if one is a 4 point Calvinist doesn't the one point you do drop in doing so also negate the other points you didn't?... I don't see how it couldn't!... Take away one point the whole foundation is destroyed... Try it!... Brother Glen

 

Absolutely

 

I personally like the doctrines of grace by Peter, Paul, Matthew, mark, Luke, John, james and Jude.

 

I personally like the ones by Christ & His Father & the Holy Spirit? Those are the ones that James Montgomery Boise wrote the book about.....I highly recommend it.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002A4MIF4/?tag=baptis04-20

Dr. Boise chose to write the book to explain how DOG was taken right from the bible. That was a very formidable task for the man because he had just been diagnosed with stage 4 cancer at the time. He would explain the writing of that book absolutely necessary to complete in order to understand the theological reasoning. To my way of thinking, he was a really great man for even attempting the initiative.

 

From Southern Baptist Founder (the first Secretary of the Foreign Mission Board of the SBC) Rev. James B. Taylor's book Virginia Baptist Ministers, published in the 1850s:

"the view now generally adopted by the Baptists [is] that the atonement is general in its nature"


His Northern Baptist contemporary, Edward Hiscox, also identified mid-nineteenth century American Baptists as holding to:

"what in England is called "moderate Calvinism." Though diversities of personal opinion in many cases may incline to either extreme, the "general atonement" view is for the most part adopted, while the "particular atonement" doctrine is held by not a few."


Another SBC Founder, Jeremiah Bell Jeter:

"Baptists generally hold to what may be termed, for the sake of distinction, "moderate Calvinism"."

 

Exactamundo. Amyraldism stems from a difference between the two Calvinist LOGICAL order of decrees. Calvinists are mostly infralapsarian (the fall decreed, election decreed, then the atonement decreed) or supralapsarian (election decreed, the fall decreed, then the atonement decreed). Amyraldians (4-point Calvinists) hold to the order of God's decree being the fall, atonement, and then election. So 4-point Calvinists would still be considered Calvinists and every Reformed doctrine; they just differ on the logical order of decrees which causes them to (as Reformed mentioned already) to struggle with particular atonement.

 

Norman Geilsler's work is a book written to express his view of arminian theology as regarding salvation, so that work is not what DTS expouses!

4 point calvinism would agree with the traditional calvinistic view regarding election/predestination/eternal security etc, but would also say that while Jesus died for all sinners, that God also knew that none of them can freely respond, so that he provided saving grace only to his elect to have them freely respond...

its the direct opposite of a westlyn view that states that God provided a common grace towards all sinners, and up to them to freely respond to get saved....

 

That is also a popular view. It has long been disputed what “this” in the text refers to. It would be easier to figure out if the Greek pronoun for "this" was feminine like the Greek word for faith is. The difficulty arises from the fact that the pronoun “this” is in the neuter. I would say that it refers generally to faith though. Augustine, Charles Hodge, and E.K. Simpson believe it is faith that is being referred to by “this”. On the other hand, Calvin holds to the belief that “this” in Ephesians 2:8 does refer to salvation itself (like you mentioned).

Personally, I believe that “this” refers to faith since the other views would be redundant statements. For instance, here is Ephesians 2:8 with “this” referencing salvation itself: "You have been saved through faith as a gift from God. And this is not your own doing; this salvation is the gift of God.” It has already been stated that this salvation is a gift from God. Viewing “this” in the text as referring to salvation is a redundant restatement of the first clause in the verse.

Actually, the entire second head of the Canons along with the rejection of errors, does contradict an unlimited atonement view.

It seems to me that TULIP is a restatement of the five heads of doctrine in the Canons of Dort. However, I will say that there are semi-doctrinated Calvinists who are totally unaware of that TULIP is based on the Canons of Dort.

I would agree.

Of course a person can be a 4-point Calvinist, all I'm saying is that such a position possesses inconsistencies—the biggest being a Trinitarian disagreement (God chooses a few, the Holy Spirit saves a few, but Christ dies for all?!?!?).

 

I believe it is an adverbial accusative.