Featured Calvinism - an attempt at a common definition for the sake of discussion

Do you have any software that can produce a Venn diagram?

I'd like to see Calvinism, Reformed, and maybe some other callsigns mapped out.

But is this just for soteriology, or is everything game? Ecclesiology and Eschatology are where I feel distinct differences in myself and the Reformers.

 

I think you meant to say TCassidy believed point 6 went too far...

 

I'm fine with the definition being the five points. That's what most people have big debates over anyway.

 

Number 2 is typically called Unconditional Election ... defined as follows:

• "This understanding of election has traditionally been called "unconditional election." It is "unconditional" because it is not conditioned upon anything that God sees in us that makes us worthy of his choosing us." (Grudem, Wayne A. (2009) Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (p. 679). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
• “In the context of the term ‘unconditional election’, this election is the sovereign act of God where, from before the foundation of the world, he chose those whom he would save (Eph. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13). This election to save is not conditioned upon any foreseen faith (Rom. 9:16) or any foreseen good works of any individual (Rom. 9:11; 2 Tim. 1:9). This election is based completely on God's sovereign choice according to the kind intention of his will (Eph. 1:11). God chose the elect because he decided to bestow his love upon them (John 3:16; Eph. 2:4), based solely on his sovereign grace (Gal. 1:15), and for his glory (Isaiah 43:7).” (Matt Slick; Unconditional Election | CARM.org)
• “The Reformed view of election, known as unconditional election, means that God does not foresee an action or condition on our part that induces Him to save us. Rather, election rests on God’s sovereign decision to save whomever He is pleased to save.” (R.C.Sproul, TULIP and Reformed Theology: Unconditional Election)

 

Although it is helpful to define the five points the way Calvinists actually define them, for example: “Perseverance of the Saints” is not “OSAS: say a prayer and go back to sinning and you will still get into Heaven.”

(The same is true for Classic Arminianism or Wesleyan Arminianism, but this is a topic on defining Calvinism.)

 

@JonC

Would you please clarify this?

I have always considered DoG and Calvinism being synonymous terms. But would you please clarify? Thanks bunches.

 

As for point # 6, I believe Dr. R.C. Sproul summed that up best...I will paraphrase it...

God has an positive and negative decree. The positive is in regards to the elect. That God acts in a positive way towards His elect. If God had not chosen the elect, none would be saved, seeing that there are none who seek Him. Negative, in that God leaves the non-elect in their (justly) condemned state. He does not have to do anything to keep the non-elect from coming to Him, as their fallen, sin-crusted heart, is what precludes them from coming to Him.

 

I think what it boils down to is that most who hold to election deny equal ultimacy in regards to God's dealings with the elect and non-elect.

 

I deleted that post to not fan the flames.

 

Gents ( and ladies ),

I'm not entirely sure that posting on this forum is what the Lord explicitly wishes for me to do, but I'll take the chance that it is, and post a few things in the belief that it may be edifying for some of you.
For brevity's sake I will keep my answers as clear and to the point as possible....resisting any urges of the flesh to get involved in "cage staged" behavior.

To be clear, I very much regret some of my past attitudes and actions towards those who disagree with what I see in Scripture, and will try to engage those who reply to me in the best interests of treating everyone in a civil and godly manner.

With that said, I'd like to address a few points that some of you have made, and comment based on my own personal understanding of the Scriptures at this point in time:

I agree with the underlined, and see your point.
For me, I lean more towards accepting "double predestination", as harsh as that may seem.

If there is, I no longer see it, though I once did.

 

I used to agree with this, but have had trouble waffling back and forth in the past, because I see other things in Scripture that now make me think otherwise:

Matthew 13:10-17
John 3:18
John 12:39-40
Romans 11:7-12
2 Corinthians 4:3-4
2 Corinthians 13:5-7
1 Peter 2:8
2 Peter 2:12
Jude 1:4
Jude 1:13

Active blinding and reprobation are things that I see God using as means to keep those who are not His children, from even the possibility of entering in... erecting a "wall" of His own ( similar to men erecting their own "wall" against Him in Romans 1:18-32 and John 3:19-20 ) in order to prevent the possibility of a man seeking Him outside of His express permission and self-revealing ( Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22 ).

Does God deliberately hide His face from men?
There are many passages that I see as supporting this, which include the following:

Job 34:29
Isaiah 45:15
Ezekiel 39:29

Regardless of mankind's responsibility to repent, I see that only those whom God makes a new creature in Christ will ever believe the Gospel...which makes it the Gospel of their salvation ( Ephesians 1:13 ), not the Gospel of anyone else's.

So, because the Gospel is intended for the elect as a promise and not an "offer", I see the Lord purposefully restricting the belief of it, in all its detail, to His children and no one else.

Agreed.
I clearly see, from Scripture, that God wouldn't "need" to actively reprobate anyone because of our love of sin and hatred of Him and His ways...we as men have no trouble wallowing in the mire.

Unlike the actions of the prodigal son, if left to ourselves we would all stay back there in the far country.
But to me, there are both passive and active aspects to "predestination", which are all rolled up in His purposes according to election.

 

Hyper Calvinist are the best. They have taken everything to its logical conclusion.

You just have to look at the point of election. According to the belief from the foundation before you existed God LOVED YOU FIRST or HATED YOU FIRST.


In the same "fairness" (non-cals love that word),...... In the same "fairness" of being born with white or black skin, you did not have that choice God did it for you.

We MIGHT BE troubled if a person were treated badly because they were black not being chosen to be white.

In the same way you got to accept God has distributed a invisible HOLY SKIN called elect, and everyone else is a reprobate skin, from the foundation of the world.