Featured What is your definition of a Calvinist?

I didn’t know it was possible to drink too much coffee.

peace to you

 

A rejector of the notion that fallen man can believe the gospel by his free will without an inner work of God in his heart.
(25 words)

Technically, yes, although all 5 points are unbiblical (the P, if taken as perseverance rather than preservation, is only wrong during the church age; it will be true during the post-church-rapture period) yet they are logically consistent (hence their appeal as an independent system from the Bible). All other points can be solely derived either from the T or even from the L. The common Calvinist claim that a true Calvinist must be a 5-point Calvinist (all or nothing) is logically accurate.
1,2,3, and 4 point Calvinists have not thought the system through.

Consistency. A hyper-Calvinist is a consistent Calvinist; but one who has lost the Holy Ghost's compunction about adopting the logical end-point of his system. Losing that compunction is the only way to be consistent. Thank God for inconsistent Calvinists!

 

Greetings,

I truly do not know what all of "Calvin" taught, nor did I ever have a desire to do so. However I have read what the "TULIP" suggests, I do not believe in "limited atonement", I believe everyone who is Given to Christ will be saved. How many that will include, Only the Lord knows that for sure. For I do not desire to "Limit" the Lord in His Eternal Plans and purposes.
However, we need to remember that the TULIP as it now stands, was not originally authored by Calvin, this was presented by men who were follower's of Calvin's teaching, and they wrote these "5 Points" about 50 years AFTER Calvin's death.

I am not a Calvinist follower, have not truly read any of his writings, but I have read other person's writing about Calvin and his character, he was it seems a real "control freak", and that I can not ever honor.

I will state this as Paul wrote to the Corinthians:


1Co 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?


1Co 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
1Co 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
1Co 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
1Co 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
1Co 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.


1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
1Co 3:20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
1Co 3:21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;
1Co 3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;
1Co 3:23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.


1Co 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.


This is how I guide my life, as taught by the Lord, I place NOT my total trust in any man, neither should any of you.
Let us live in Peace as much as we are able, by the Grace of the Lord.....for HE shall Judge ALL things.

The Lord bless you....
In His Love....

 

A Christian who holds to the doctrines of grace
Have to hold to all 5 to be a real Calvinist
Reformed would be a Calvinist who in addition to doctrines of grace, holds to a Confession of faith, and to Covenant theology

 

That’s a pretty good summary.

I would not say it as a negative, though, I’d say “A supporter of the truth that fallen man cannot believe the gospel without the inner work of God in his heart. praise our Lord Jesus” (25 words)

peace to you

 

...commonly referred to as 'Total Depravity'.

 

Greetings,

Excuse my ignorance, what is an OP?

Thank you.....
The Lord bless you.

 

Greetings,

I did answer the question. Read what I wrote. It would be the same answer to those who are "Armenian" in their belief system.
I follow not after men who have a following who agree with their doctrinal belief's.
I could not truly tell you what "a definition of a Calvinist" represents, for I follow NOT after men, I follow after the Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles teachings.
Period........
If you feel that is not answering your question, well there is nothing I can do about that.

Thank you.
The Lord bless you.....
In His Love.....

 

Rest assured, our Lord Jesus doesn't need to make of fallen man a mere automaton to get praise.
Fallen man's free will in no way derogates from the glory of the Biblical God, only from the glory of the petty little Calvinistic God who fancies he loses glory if a fallen man has free will.

 

Wow! Straight to the insults.

Ok, the concept of “free will” is the second lie Satan told in the garden, just after “thou shall not truly die”.

Mankind has “human will”, that is enslaved to sin (please read Romans 1-7 for definitive scriptural support), though I’m certain you will ignore it out of hand and continue with insults.

Peace to you

 

No need to start with the insults please.

 

I'm not sure I agree with this one. I think most Calvinists would agree that John MacArthur is reformed but he does not hold to Covenant Theology nor does Steven Lawson.

 

Calvinists also do not follow after men. I really hate the term Calvinist because it distracts from the actual beliefs.

 

Do you really not see your statement about “petty little Calvinists God” is an insult?

Peace to you

 

A) That's misquoted.
B) The Calvinist notion of God makes for a petty God. That is not an insult to you unless you think you're the Calvinist God.
C) You're the one who presumed I would ignore scriptures. So
D) You're the one who's insulting.

All the best.

 

Maybe we can reign it back to the OP?

 

Calvinism doesn't say man has to be made into an automaton to get praise. It does say man needs a new heart, which is given by the Holy Spirit. The new heart and the new birth is something we cannot do for ourselves so it is not a matter of "free will". You are given a whole new nature. Honestly, I thought you were on board at least to that extent.

 

Yes, it most certainly does, but only admits as much through clenched teeth when forced into a corner.

A red herring of an argument if I ever saw one. Classic Calvinistic obfuscation.
No one debates that point. Utterly irrelevant.
The new birth is entirely a work of God. But he will only birth the nature of Christ in you if you want him to.
Let's not confound distinct issues.
In the Calvinist world, a paraplegic and dumb (mute) man who even winks his assent to the surgeon who completely heals him is a man who participated in his own healing and robbed the surgeon of his glory.
The only way the surgeon gets glory is if the paraplegic dumb man was also comatose and never could wink his assent.
What a messed up doctrine, what a petty little surgeon that. That ain't Bible.

 

I don't have a problem with you saying that you, yourself, wanted the new birth. But it's not irrelevant if you now love God and choose to praise him because of being born again. I don't know what happened to you in the past but you have an animosity towards Calvinism that is weird. Why is every response to you some kind of sinister "obfuscation" or some subtle insult? Why can't you just disagree with someone and state your case? I'm simply saying that if you are now loving God and praising him whereas you didn't before, and it's because you have been given a new nature - then the change did not come from your own free will.