Who is a Calvinist?

[JesusFan]

I am what many here would call a "Calvinist", as what I believe on each of the so-called "Five Points" matches them... at least in spirit, if not in letter.

My only misgiving in the OP is in the conclusion below:

There are actually those among professing Christians ( like myself ) who see the things that are termed "Calvinism" all by themselves in their own studies of His word... and have never relied upon the doctrines established by John Calvin and his successors to guide them or even to influence them in any way whatsoever.

Most, if not all, of us come from backgrounds that are "non-Calvinist" / "Arminian"/ "etc." in their origins;
With me personally hearing God's word and believing on Christ for the forgiveness of my sins in an independent Baptist Church that taught what many are now calling, "Provisionism".

While the teachings of "Calvinism" may, in most cases, mirror my own beliefs... they do not do so in their entirety.
But on the so-called "Five Points", they do indeed.


Regarding salvation, faith and the natural condition of man:

I do not agree with the teachings of Jakob Hermanszoon ( "Jacobus Arminius" ), whose followers presented their Five Articles of the Remonstrants to the churches of the Netherlands in response to the Belgic Confession;
I also do not agree with the teachings of John Wesley, who went on to found what would later be known as "Wesleyanism" and the Methodist Church, and those teachings are generally known today as modern "Arminianism";

Finally, I do not agree with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, whose views on salvation, etc. were codified by Luis de Molina and is generally known as "Molinism".

All comes back down to the basic issues of how badly did the Fall affect us, and does God require us to do anything additional to receiving Jesus as Savior and Lord by faith alone at all?

Pretty much Scripture as it comes (as a narrative). The overall theme being "Christus Victor", which would exclude Calvinism and Arminianism by definition.

To give you an example - I believe that being saved from the wrath to come means that when that wrath comes we will be saved from it. This is based on 1 Peter 1 as well, so it is different from Preservation of the Saints in the readon we are saved (Preservation of the Saints is established on the other "points" of Calvinism).

Where does that wrath of God towards we as sinners go though, as someone has to face our due condemnation and judgement?

Contradiction and incoherence always lead to issues. And TULIP doesn't appear to resolve them. I would also discount "I" as a contradiction of the biblical record: irresistable grace in some cannot mean grace isn't resistable in others. "T" is framed wrongly: the issue isn't about "men coming to God," but about "man's response to God's coming to him." And if God comes to a man, as he does (as "in him we live and have our being" Acts 17:28) how can a mere theolgian place any human barrier between man and his maker? I only find "lost" respecting Christ's sheep, and "satan" respecting his own devotees. And hasn't the grace of God appeared to all men (Titus 2:11)? Again, what right does a theologian have to put qualifiers on election, so as to demand it be "U"? That election is conditional from a human perspective is inevitable, hence 2 Peter 1:10. That the saints may not always "P" is taken for granted in Galatians, and in many other places, and caught by the remark of Christ in Matt 24:12 respecting the "love of most growing cold." Biblical commentators have their place, but they should also know their place. Not sure that TULIP has a right view of its place in God's schema.

Who was to get saved by God and yet resisted that unto damnation then?

You are neither a classical Baptist nor a Baboon though.

Am a Calvinist Baptist

 

[JonC]

This thread is, as I consider it a safe zone.

This entire forum should be a safe zone.

People should be able to disagree, express their beliefs strongly, and discuss their differences.

We live in a time where people want to shut down and silence opposing views, to stop all dialogue and vilify those who dare hold an opposing view. Unfortunately this applies to Chriatians as well.

 

[Charlie24]

This entire forum should be a safe zone.

People should be able to disagree, express their beliefs strongly, and discuss their differences.

We live in a time where people want to shut down and silence opposing views, to stop all dialogue and vilify those who dare hold an opposing view. Unfortunately this applies to Chriatians as well.

I agree it can definitely go to far. Some are more oriented toward a brisk disagreement than others.

I sometimes wonder why the Holy Spirit omitted the details of that brisk disagreement between Paul and Barnabas.

 

[JesusFan]

I agree it can definitely go to far. Some are more oriented toward a brisk disagreement than others.

I sometimes wonder why the Holy Spirit omitted the details of that brisk disagreement between Paul and Barnabas.

They were probably arguing over which was the true Bible, 1611 or 1769?

 

[Charlie24]

They were probably arguing over which was the true Bible, 1611 or 1769?

LOL, maybe, Paul was given many future events, but I think it was more heartfelt and broader than that.

And I think we may be surprised if we could have heard that argument.

 

[JonC]

Where does that wrath of God towards we as sinners go though, as someone has to face our due condemnation and judgement?

??

That question does not make sence. Where does wrath go??

Wrath is not a material thing. It does not go anywhere.

 

[cjab]

Who was to get saved by God and yet resisted that unto damnation then?

"For many are called, but few are chosen." Matt 22:14.

You need to revisit the Old Testament, to discover how the Israelites, who are called "God's people" were rejected by God. See especially Jeremiah.

Jer 4:22 "For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge."

 

[Van]

Am a Calvinist Baptist

Off topic and irrelevant post #2.

 

[JesusFan]

"For many are called, but few are chosen." Matt 22:14.

You need to revisit the Old Testament, to discover how the Israelites, who are called "God's people" were rejected by God. See especially Jeremiah.

Jer 4:22 "For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge."

read where the prophets all spoke of a faithful remnant chosen and reserved unto God

 

[JesusFan]

??

That question does not make sence. Where does wrath go??

Wrath is not a material thing. It does not go anywhere.

It has to be appeased, as God will not just decide to no longer vent His righteous anger out against sinners without that wraith being propiated for now

 

[JonC]

It has to be appeased, as God will not just decide to no longer vent His righteous anger out against sinners without that wraith being propiated for now

No. Man cannot apoease God. That was the idea of pegan cults.
This is not anger as a human emotion (an emotion that influences our actions).


The word "propitiation" refers to a turning aside.

The Bible tells us exactly how God's wrath is settled. He forgives those who turn from a "mind set on the flesh" to "a mind set on the Spirit" (repentance) and He will condemn the wicked (those who do not repent).

It is mpossible to understand Scrioture or the gosoel without understanding this very simole biblical truth (this truth that is repeated hundreds of times throughout the Old and New Testaments).


So as not to hijack this thread I have started another:

Where does God's Wrath Go?

For the past decade or two I have often been asked the question "Where does God's wrath go?" At first I thought this was a joke, as it is a nonsense question. Wrath is not a material thing. It does not "go" anywhere. Take an argument where a father who is angry at his son. The two make...

www.baptistboard.com

 

[Charlie24]

read where the prophets all spoke of a faithful remnant chosen and reserved unto God

This is concerning Israel, God's chosen people.

God made promises to faithful Abraham that his descendants would receive those promises.

The faithful remnant of Israel has been reserved by God down through the centuries, and to this very day to fulfill those promises God made to Abraham.

 

[Charlie24]

This is concerning Israel, God's chosen people.

God made promises to faithful Abraham that his descendants would receive those promises.

The faithful remnant of Israel has been reserved by God down through the centuries, and to this very day to fulfill those promises God made to Abraham.

We Gentile believers have been grafted into that promise God made with Abraham.

We are not the natural seed of Abraham, we are the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith in Jesus Christ.

The same promises made to Israel are given to us and we will share the land with them.

But the land promise is organized and divided in the name of the 12 tribes of Israel, found in the book of Ezekiel.

 

[JesusFan]

No Jewish person today though has any Covenant relationship with God apart from the new One, so all saved jews and saved Gentiles now in one body, the Church, Spiritual Israel

 

[Charlie24]

No Jewish person today though has any Covenant relationship with God apart from the new One, so all saved jews and saved Gentiles now in one body, the Church, Spiritual Israel

I agree to a point. The New Covenant is for both Israel and the Gentile and we are one body in Christ.

The Gentile Church has been grafted into Israel's covenant, the New Covenant was made with them (Israel).

The covenant is not with the Church, it is with Israel, the natural seed of Abraham.

 

[JonC]

I agree to a point. The New Covenant is for both Israel and the Gentile and we are one body in Christ.

The Gentile Church has been grafted into Israel's covenant, the New Covenant was made with them (Israel).

The covenant is not with the Church, it is with Israel, the natural seed of Abraham.

Just asking as I am curious.

What do you do with the natural seed of Abraham that is not Israel (Israel is the natural seed of Jacob, but Abraham had orher descendents)?

The reason this peaked my curiosity is there is a covenant God made with Abraham but this was larger than Israel, while there was the Old Covenant given to directly to Israel (one that was a manifestation of God's righteousness).

I was just wondering about whete you think these covenants fall.

My view is God made a covenant with Abraham and his Seed (singular...meaning Jesus). I believe it is meaningful that this covenant was made prior to Israel, prior to Jacob, and prior to the Old Covenant. I'll stop there (don't want to ramble) and listen to you.

Here is one passage I can recall off hand'


Galatians 3:16-17. The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

 

[Charlie24]

Just asking as I am curious.

What do you do with the natural seed of Abraham that is not Israel (Israel is the natural seed of Jacob, but Abraham had orher descendents)?

The reason this peaked my curiosity is there is a covenant God made with Abraham but this was larger than Israel, while there was the Old Covenant given to directly to Israel (one that was a manifestation of God's righteousness).

I was just wondering about whete you think these covenants fall.

My view is God made a covenant with Abraham and his Seed (singular...meaning Jesus). I believe it is meaningful that this covenant was made prior to Israel, prior to Jacob, and prior to the Old Covenant. I'll stop there (don't want to ramble) and listen to you.

Here is one passage I can recall off hand'




Galatians 3:16-17. The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

Well, Paul tells us that Abraham is the father of all of us who are in the faith, as he was in the faith.

The promise of the New Covenant was promised to the seed of Abraham, through his faith.

That promise was carried to Isaac and then Jacob by birthright, excluding all other children of Abraham.

From Jacob came the 12 tribes of Israel who will receive this promise made to their natural father Abraham.

But the promise is by the faith of Abraham, and only those in the faith will inherit the promise.

This is why Paul said that "all of Israel is not Israel" meaning all of them are not in the faith of their father Abraham.

We Gentiles, as Paul has told us, are grafted into this New Covenant promised to Israel.

I hope that answers your questions on how I see it, JonC.

 

[JonC]

Well, Paul tells us that Abraham is the father of all of us who are in the faith, as he was in the faith.

The promise of the New Covenant was promised to the seed of Abraham, through his faith.

That promise was carried to Isaac and then Jacob by birthright, excluding all other children of Abraham.

From Jacob came the 12 tribes of Israel who will receive this promise made to their natural father Abraham.

But the promise is by the faith of Abraham, and only those in the faith will inherit the promise.

This is why Paul said that "all of Israel is not Israel" meaning all of them are not in the faith of their father Abraham.

We Gentiles, as Paul has told us, are grafted into this New Covenant promised to Israel.

I hope that answers your questions on how I see it, JonC.

It helps answer my question. I think we may view some of this differently, but to be fair I have not really dove into this topic.

I see nothing I'd disagree with in your explanation.

Here are some of my random thoughts (follies of a middle aged man....if 57 is "middle aged"):

Paul said that the promise was to Abraham and his Seed (singular, Christ).
The Old Covenant was given to Israel through Moses.
The New Covenant extends past Israel as a nation.

 

[Charlie24]

It helps answer my question. I think we may view some of this differently, but to be fair I have not really dove into this topic.

I see nothing I'd disagree with in your explanation.

Here are some of my random thoughts (follies of a middle aged man....if 57 is "middle aged"):

Paul said that the promise was to Abraham and his Seed (singular, Christ).
The Old Covenant was given to Israel through Moses.
The New Covenant extends past Israel as a nation.

LOL, at 69 I would like to believe 57 is middle aged.

I agree, Christ is the promised seed of Abraham.

If you take a closer look at it, the New Covenant was actually made with Christ for man.

Paul said this New Covenant is an everlasting Covenant, in other words it can't be broken.

The Old Covenant God made with man was broken immediately because it was with fallen man.

The New Covenant is made with Christ, on His performance, not the performance of man.

The reason the New Covenant is an everlasting Covenant and cannot be broken.

 

[cjab]

read where the prophets all spoke of a faithful remnant chosen and reserved unto God

The one doesn't preclude the other. The point is this: the unfaithful amongst the Jews cannot say they weren't "called".

"Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises." Rom 9:4.

They threw it all away. God didn't grant them "adoption," only for it to be taken away without a reason. That would make God out to be evil.

And consider: the High Calvinist / Augustinian view would make it seem that the children of God are other than adopted in this life, but that they are gods in their own right. Actually, the sons of God remain fallible human beings who like Paul, must "....strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize." 1 Cor 9:27.

Matt 23:12 "For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."