Featured 4 Point Calvinism

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

Within the context of the verse, I don’t think it is redundant as the subject carried is salvation and not faith, but regardless I agree that faith unto salvation is a gift of God (for we would have never conceived of such on our own). And you are right that Calvin taught the verse indicated salvation as a gift, but if I recall the Canons of Dort agreed with your interpretation...that the gift is faith.

But in regards to the scope of atonement, I disagree. Here is why. First, there were many within orthodox Calvinism who held what we’d consider today as 4 point Calvinism. This discussion was ongoing at the time, yet the Canons of Dort were not controversial between these two factions. The language of the Canons allow for a universal purpose and genuine offer of salvation. What it does not allow is the doctrine that God wished to “bestow equally to all” the benefits of the Atonement and that the distinction between what is bestowed does not depend on the free-will of man. The “L” in TULIP is quite different. We all probably know moderate Calvinists who have no difficulty affirming the Canons of Dort but who reject TULIP. It is not an inconsistent logic (although some may be unable to see that reasoning) but a difference in understanding.

 

I meant clarify in terms of actual theories. We are also not speaking of Jesus atoning for dogs, cats and fish either. Biggrin

 

I think we probably are....great minds think alike.

 

Given the diversity of Reformed thought and the legitimacy of other theological persuasions, I never really understood why so many use Calvinism as their measuring stick...except perhaps for the preciseness of "TULIP". I think it would be far better if people would speak plainly what they believe and go forward from there.

 

This is why I don't like the "disagree button." Our "disagreements" should be with the purpose of edification, or at least in communicating through disagreement the correction we deem necessary. Icon "disagreed" with the above but it is impossible to know the reasoning. (I know some people just "disagree" out of cultic allegiance....the mere abundance and predictability of their ratings dismiss any possible worth...., but I also know Icon not to be this type of person).

I count six points:

1. There is a diversity of Reformed thought
2. There are reasons behind this diversity.
3. I don't understand why so many use Calvinism as their measuring stick.
4. "TULIP" has a degree of preciseness to it.
5. It would be better if people would speak plainly what they believe.
6. Discussion would be better going from this point (of speaking plainly what one believes).

Brother Icon, if you would be so kind as to identify which of those you find objectionable so that I can know where we disagree regarding this thread, it would be appreciated. I'm sure, as you took the time to consider my post and disagree, that this was merely an oversight.

Thanks.

 

The only thing that I would add is that historically we had people who were what many consider to be 4-point Calvinists, but were not outside of Calvinism. Basing election on the Father's decree to choose rather than the scope of the Son's death, they did not consider themselves less a point as much as they considered their opponents within Calvinism as developing a theory that exceeded biblical warrant (they viewed them as "hyper", of denying some Scripture to elevate their theory). Baxter is one example.

I say this because even prior to Dort this was an issue, and those who believed that Christ's death made salvation possible for all men were still within orthodox Calvinism. That said, orthodox Calvinism is a moving target (e.g., James Arminius was never unorthodox in his time) and "believers baptism" is certainly beyond what would historically be considered orthodox Calvinism. In fact, when applied to Baptists, I am not certain that orthodoxy can properly be used to describe a baptist's position within Calvinism.

 

Thank you and be safe (I hope you are not literally "driving right now").