-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
4 Point Calvinism
- Thread starter Truth Seeker
- Start date
I was pretty sure it could be either. You may be referring specifically to τοῦτο while I'm thinking in the use of καὶ τοῦτο. But i'm not above correction.
Last edited:
It's Boice.I personally like the ones by Christ & His Father & the Holy Spirit? Those are the ones that James Montgomery Boise wrote the book about.....I highly recommend it.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002A4MIF4/?tag=baptis04-20
Dr. Boise chose to write the book to explain how DOG was taken right from the bible.
I made a thread a long time ago about one of his sermons : Christ, The Calvinist.
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.
Nothing to clarify. I think I made it quite clear.
I meant clarify in terms of actual theories. We are also not speaking of Jesus atoning for dogs, cats and fish either. Biggrin
I don't disagree with any of that.
I think we may be saying the same thing in different words.
It's Geisler. And he wrote that book to take issue with what he called extreme Calvinists. Actually he aimed his guns at Calvinism. He did did not critique Arminianism as such. Although claiming he is not Arminian,but a moderate Calvinist, he is a semi-Pelagian, for the most part.
It's Wesleyan.
I think we probably are....great minds think alike.
I believe Geisler is trying to sit on a non-existent theological fence.
\Actually, he's sitting on a platform where many professing Chrisians are theologically. However, calling himself a moderate Calvinist, is dishonest and absurd, frankly.
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.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
The Greek pronoun τουτο translated “this” in Eph. 2:8 is neuter in gender and the Greek noun translated “faith” in the same verse is feminine in gender. Some commentators have argued that the pronoun, therefore, cannot refer to faith but must refer to the process of salvation (the Greek noun for “salvation” is also feminine). Other commentators have argued that since και τουτο is an idiomatic expression, the gender of the pronoun is insignificant. The Church Fathers (Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Jerome in particular) interpreted the pronoun as referring to faith and so have many scholars and commentators including Erasmus, Beza, Crocius, Cocceius, Grotius, Estius, Bengel, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisiping, and Hodge. Scholars and commentators that are more recent acknowledge that the pronoun may refer to the noun “grace,” the verb “saved,” the noun “faith,” or the process of salvation by grace.I don't think it is all that much of a mystery. πιστεως (faith) is a noun in the genitive singular feminine while τουτο (this) is a demonstrative pronoun in the nominative singular neuter.
Last edited:
Yes S. Lewis Johnson and others were 5 pointers who preached at believers Chapel. TC AND RT are correctly trying to narrow the focus of the OP.
Last edited:
All fit under the umbrella of salvation, all the parts are given, repentance and faith are gifts of God. This is another failed attempt to wiggle out of the truth that biblical salvation is from God.
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.
Last edited:
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Please tell us how interpreting the Greek pronoun τουτο in Eph. 2:8 to be referring to faith—as did Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome Erasmus, Beza, Crocius, Cocceius, Grotius, Estius, Bengel, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisiping, and Hodge—is “another failed attempt to wiggle out of the truth that biblical salvation is from God.” I do not agree with these men on this particular issue, but their interpretation here shows that the issue is not nearly as simple as some less well educated men have supposed it to be.
Please also post your evidence that και τουτο is is not an idiomatic expression and that, therefore, these men were incorrect.
Read through the thread and this is where I'm at on the OP. You're either a Calvinist, and embrace his system, or you're Reformed, which is a broader category than Calvinism.
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.
I am driving right now but in about 250 miles I'll be able to answer as you request
Thank you and be safe (I hope you are not literally "driving right now").