3 Point Calvinists time to speak up!

[drfuss]

So does that mean we are still in search of the illusive 3-pointer?

Does it mean that you are one but you know of no others on this board that are 3 pointers?

Or does it mean that Baptists that call themsevles 3-point Calvinists and those that call themselves Arminian but they also hold to OSAS - are in fact all holding to one and the same teaching?

in Christ,

Bob

drfuss: I can understand a three point Calvinist holding to the Classic definitions of unconditional election, irresistible grace and perseverence of the saints, and not accepting the classic definitions of total depravity and limited atonement. To me, the classic definition of unconditional election requires the classic definifion of irresistible grace also.

If I am wrong, please enlighten me.

 

[EdSutton]

Does it mean that you are one...

As John Hancock might have said, if he'd had a computer, I'll repost this in bigger font so that King George will not have to put on his spectacles!

Personally, I sometimes refer to myself as a 0 point Calvinist. I am certainly not any Arminian, rejecting all the points there as they have been 'developed' by the Arminians, and I reject the wording of all five points of Calvinism, as worded, as well. But I believe in 'free grace', salvation by faith, the blood substitutionary atonement and resurrection of the God-man, the Lord Jesus Christ and 'eternal Security', for starters. And the other cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith, as well, in their entirety.

So what would you call me?

Hey, I got it! A No-Point Calvinist!

... but you know of no others on this board that are 3 pointers?

{Sigh!!}

As to who shares my views, I have no idea, especially as to most, if not all, details.

I'll add, that I do not know the points of view of most, except for what they post, and I do not particularly try to remember each one, but reply on a post by post basis. As far as I know, I actually know exactly three individuals on the BB, Joseph M. Smith, who was a college pastor of mine at the Baptist Student Union from almost 40 years ago, when I was a college freshman and sophomore, in 1966-1968, before I transferred schools, and with whom I'd had no contact for at least 35 years until meeting up with him on the BB about a year or so ago;

an individual named Rance, who is actually one of my two or three best friends for 40 years, from college days, (and who also knows Joseph M. Smith, as I do from that same 38 year ago time) who got on the BB last year for the sole purpose of espousing a particular viewpoint on Paul, and has had a total of exactly five posts, in a year and three months, with all of them falling in a week, if my memory serves, and I'm not even sure what is his on-BB 'handle' after 15 mos.;

and Lou Martuneac, whom I met in person after interacting on the BB at a conference we both attended, in Chicago, two months ago.

I may know or have known some more here, but I am not aware of it, if so. And I am not in lock-step agreement with either Joseph M. Smith or Lou Martuneac, I would suspect, on all points (just as I have repeatedly said about most others), and certainly know I do not see eye-to-eye, with my own close friend, Rance. None of this is meant to sound like a smart-alecky answer (Well, OK, so the 'large print bit', is!), but I simply do not know, as I had said before.

Or does it mean that Baptists that call themsevles 3-point Calvinists and those that call themselves Arminian but they also hold to OSAS - are in fact all holding to one and the same teaching?

in Christ

Bob

Rhetorical question, but still, since I am not, nor have ever been a mind-reader, I dunno'!

Ed

 

[BobRyan]

Ok - so that is no to limited atonement?
No to irresistable grace?

What about

Total Depravity?
Perseverance of the saints?

Your 0-point statement makes it appear that you would say no to those two as well


Unconditional election?

 

[EdSutton]

Ok - so that is no to limited atonement?
No to irresistable grace?

What about

Total Depravity?
Perseverance of the saints?

Your 0-point statement makes it appear that you would say no to those two as well


Unconditional election?

For now the third time -

I reject the wording of all five points of Calvinism, as worded, as well.

C'mon, BobRyan. This is not a difficult sentence to understand. And I have clearly before often argued against the wording of (and the belief in) "the perseverance of the saints", as this is part and parcel of both Arminianism and Calvinism as systems of theology, and I have done so on this very board, and I believe, on this forum.

I don't get into these often, because I think it is an exercise in futility to repeat the same arguments to the same people over and over agian. I said I disagreed with "Total Inability", the actual wording of some more 'extreme' versions of TULIP, as well.

I will here repeat one thing I have said more than once. In the final analysis, there is no difference between Arminiansim and Calvinism. Both systems 'demand' the ability and 'right' to 'judge' (although many, if not most, will deny this and claim to merely be "Fruit Inspectors") and decide whether or not an individual is saved, byt whether or not another's 'conduct' measures up to an undefined standard of how a Christian should live and act.

For a Calvinist, one who professes to be Christian, whatever any of this means to one individual or another, and whose life does not meet this undefined standard, or who at one time did meet this supposed standard, but no longer does, that individual was never "really and truly" saved in the first place. For they surely and obviously are not "persevering".

Ergo, "They never really had it, 'cause they obviously ain't got it."

The Arminian, however, sees this differently. For the Arminian, one who professes to be Christian, again, whatever any of this means to one individual or another, and whose life does not meet this undefined standard, or who at one time did meet this supposed standard, but no longer does, that individual was very probably once saved, but no longer, by "falling form grace', they lost it, somehow, and no longer "have it". For they surely and obviously are not "persevering".

Ergo, "They probably had it once, but lost it, 'cause now, they obviously ain't got it".

What difference is there between "they obviously ain't got it" and "they obviously ain't got it"? I see not a whit of difference, here in this.

Got it now? The systems "meet" at "the perseverance of the saints". The doctrine and teachings of what is known as "Lordship Salvation" is the essence of how this is defined. The misconception held by at least 95% of Christendom, is that the two are polar opposites, one 'heading' one way, and another 'heading' in the other. And the two never meet, as both fly off into space in two different directions.

However that is a faulty analogy. A better analogy is that of two individuals traveling, one directly east, and the other directly west, from Lopndon England on the zero or 'Prime Meridian', on the earth. After each travels exactly half way around the globe, they will meet on the 180th Meridian, or what generally is the International Date Line. If I were to let this represent "the perseverance of the saints", pray tell exactly what differnece does it make as to the route one took to get there?? There is only one Greenwich, and one International Date Line.

So in short, for this very shortened and inadequate summation, both Calvinism and Arminianism, despite any and all attempts to dance around it, are denials of grace, unless they can retain the right to re-define it, to support their own theological systems.

Gotta' run for now, but hope that helps a bit.

Ed

 

[drfuss]

EdSutton writes:
"I will here repeat one thing I have said more than once. In the final analysis, there is no difference between Arminiansim and Calvinism. Both systems 'demand' the ability and 'right' to 'judge' (although many, if not most, will deny this and claim to merely be "Fruit Inspectors") and decide whether or not an individual is saved, byt whether or not another's 'conduct' measures up to an undefined standard of how a Christian should live and act.

For a Calvinist, one who professes to be Christian, whatever any of this means to one individual or another, and whose life does not meet this undefined standard, or who at one time did meet this supposed standard, but no longer does, that individual was never "really and truly" saved in the first place. For they surely and obviously are not "persevering".

Ergo, "They never really had it, 'cause they obviously ain't got it."

The Arminian, however, sees this differently. For the Arminian, one who professes to be Christian, again, whatever any of this means to one individual or another, and whose life does not meet this undefined standard, or who at one time did meet this supposed standard, but no longer does, that individual was very probably once saved, but no longer, by "falling form grace', they lost it, somehow, and no longer "have it". For they surely and obviously are not "persevering".

Ergo, "They probably had it once, but lost it, 'cause now, they obviously ain't got it".

What difference is there between "they obviously ain't got it" and "they obviously ain't got it"? I see not a whit of difference, here in this."



drfuss: Well said. The above applies to Wesleyan Arminians (most Arminians) and Calvinists. Hey, I finally found someone who agrees with me on this. The practical difference is primarily a "play on words". The uncertainities in both beliefs identified by those of other beliefs, are about the same.

The Reformed Arminians are somewhat different in that their assurance of salvation is based solely on their current belief in Christ. Their performance is not a measure of whether they were really saved. They are 100% certain that they are saved now. Their uncertainity comes in whether they will continue to trust in Christ.

I too do not consider myself to be either a Calvinist or an Arminian because their is so much misunderstanding in what both beliefs mean.

 

[BobRyan]

For a Calvinist, one who professes to be Christian, whatever any of this means to one individual or another, and whose life does not meet this undefined standard, or who at one time did meet this supposed standard, but no longer does, that individual was never "really and truly" saved in the first place. For they surely and obviously are not "persevering".

Ergo, "They never really had it, 'cause they obviously ain't got it."

The Arminian, however, sees this differently. For the Arminian, one who professes to be Christian, again, whatever any of this means to one individual or another, and whose life does not meet this undefined standard, or who at one time did meet this supposed standard, but no longer does, that individual was very probably once saved, but no longer, by "falling form grace', they lost it, somehow, and no longer "have it". For they surely and obviously are not "persevering".

Ergo, "They probably had it once, but lost it, 'cause now, they obviously ain't got it".

What difference is there between "they obviously ain't got it" and "they obviously ain't got it"? I see not a whit of difference, here in this.
Ed

hmm maybe you just need to stay IN the conversation a bit longer.

The debate is NOT of the form "Hey I know Joe Smith and HE OBVIOUSLY AINT GOT IT".

Rather it is of the form "Matt 7 SAYS THEY AINT GOT IT", John 15 SAYS they aint God it, Romans 11 SAYS they aint Got it. They being those referenced by those texts NOT some Joe Smith friend or neighbor that WE assign to that role.

So it is much harder to pretend that this is all just US selecting out our Joe Smith examples.

RATHER it is BIBLE authors claiming this.

The question is - what are THEY saying in scripture? How do you read THEM?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[EdSutton]

EdSutton writes:
"I will here repeat one thing I have said more than once. In the final analysis, there is no difference between Arminiansim and Calvinism. Both systems 'demand' the ability and 'right' to 'judge' (although many, if not most, will deny this and claim to merely be "Fruit Inspectors") and decide whether or not an individual is saved, byt whether or not another's 'conduct' measures up to an undefined standard of how a Christian should live and act.

For a Calvinist, one who professes to be Christian, whatever any of this means to one individual or another, and whose life does not meet this undefined standard, or who at one time did meet this supposed standard, but no longer does, that individual was never "really and truly" saved in the first place. For they surely and obviously are not "persevering".

Ergo, "They never really had it, 'cause they obviously ain't got it."

The Arminian, however, sees this differently. For the Arminian, one who professes to be Christian, again, whatever any of this means to one individual or another, and whose life does not meet this undefined standard, or who at one time did meet this supposed standard, but no longer does, that individual was very probably once saved, but no longer, by "falling form grace', they lost it, somehow, and no longer "have it". For they surely and obviously are not "persevering".

Ergo, "They probably had it once, but lost it, 'cause now, they obviously ain't got it".

What difference is there between "they obviously ain't got it" and "they obviously ain't got it"? I see not a whit of difference, here in this."



drfuss: Well said. The above applies to Wesleyan Arminians (most Arminians) and Calvinists. Hey, I finally found someone who agrees with me on this. The practical difference is primarily a "play on words". The uncertainities in both beliefs identified by those of other beliefs, are about the same.

The Reformed Arminians are somewhat different in that their assurance of salvation is based solely on their current belief in Christ. Their performance is not a measure of whether they were really saved. They are 100% certain that they are saved now. Their uncertainity comes in whether they will continue to trust in Christ.

I too do not consider myself to be either a Calvinist or an Arminian because their is so much misunderstanding in what both beliefs mean.

What? Did I just find another "No Point" Calvinist?? Sure looks like it, or at least someone that agrees with me to some degree, anyway. :thumbs:

There you go, BobRyan. We found one! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[drfuss]

drfuss: BobRyan, since none of your type of 3 Point Calvinists came forward in this section of BB, I started a thread in the Baptist Theology and Bible Study Section, requesting if there are any such 3 Point Calvinists. One person responded saying he could be considered a 2 and half Point Calvinists. Below is his response to my question about what points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drfuss
drfuss: What 2 and half points do your hold?

Total Depravity - 1 point
Preservence of the Saints - 1 point
...(not perseverence, though it is symantics)
Election being God's sole perogitive as to why and how He chooses to do it. - 1/2 point.
__________________


So far, this is the closest response recieved for your type of 3 Point Calvinist. As you can see, he changes or negates the classic Calvinist definition of election.

I am still waiting for your type 3 Point Calvinist (if there are any) to enlighten us on their belief.

 

[BobRyan]

I have to agree that the best I can come up with for 3 pointers -- is 2.5 points.

And that is why I start wondering if the 3-point Calvinists are just Arminians that want to think of themselves as Calvinists. Possibly due to their stand on OSAS.

 

[drfuss]

I have to agree that the best I can come up with for 3 pointers -- is 2.5 points.

And that is why I start wondering if the 3-point Calvinists are just Arminians that want to think of themselves as Calvinists. Possibly due to their stand on OSAS.

drfuss: IMO, except for Classic Calvinists (5 Pointers), classifying Christians as any type of Calvinist or Arminian just leads to confusion. If someone says they believe in OSAS, I know what they mean. Saying they are a 1, 2, or 3 Point Calvinists, who knows what they believe?

Some Christians change the definitions of the points and still claim to be Calvinists. Except for possibly limited atonement, any change in a definition of a point changes the connection to and application of the other points leading to more confusion.

Classifying someone as an Arminian leads to the same type of confusion. Is he a Reformed Arminian, a Wesleyan Arminian, a SDA, or some combination of those?

For these reasons, I do not label myself as either a Calvinist or an Arminian.

 

[Allan]

drfuss: BobRyan, since none of your type of 3 Point Calvinists came forward in this section of BB, I started a thread in the Baptist Theology and Bible Study Section, requesting if there are any such 3 Point Calvinists. One person responded saying he could be considered a 2 and half Point Calvinists. Below is his response to my question about what points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drfuss
drfuss: What 2 and half points do your hold?

Total Depravity - 1 point
Preservence of the Saints - 1 point
...(not perseverence, though it is symantics)
Election being God's sole perogitive as to why and how He chooses to do it. - 1/2 point.
__________________


So far, this is the closest response recieved for your type of 3 Point Calvinist. As you can see, he changes or negates the classic Calvinist definition of election.

I am still waiting for your type 3 Point Calvinist (if there are any) to enlighten us on their belief.

Since this quote is from me let me state that I NEVER stated I "could be considered a 2 and half Point Calvinists".

Here is the Post in which drfuss asked what 2 and a half points I hold:

You could say I hold 2 and half points of the Calvinistic belief acrostic (TULIP) but you could not call me a Calvinist...

NOTE PLEASE that I did not claim to be a 2 and a half point Calvinist but "you could say I hold...but you could not call me a Calvinist"

 

[drfuss]

Since this quote is from me let me state that I NEVER stated I "could be considered a 2 and half Point Calvinists".

Here is the Post in which drfuss asked what 2 and a half points I hold:

NOTE PLEASE that I did not claim to be a 2 and a half point Calvinist but "you could say I hold...but you could not call me a Calvinist"

drfuss: I overlooked the "You could say" part of your post; Sorry about that. Thanks for the clarification.