7 point Calvinism

[Piper]

Jokingly, I heard John Piper say this 20 years ago and say it about myself all the time.

The “sixth” point, double predestination, is simply the flip side of unconditional election. Just as God chooses whom he will save without regard to any distinctives in the person (Ephesians 1:5-6; Acts 13:48; Revelation 17:8), so also he decides whom he will not save without regard to any distinctives in the individual (John 10:26; 12:37-40; Romans 9:11-18; 1 Peter 2:7-8). By definition, the decision to elect some individuals to salvation necessarily implies the decision not to save those that were not chosen. God ordains not only that some will be rescued from his judgment, but that others will undergo that judgment.

This does not mean that someone might really want to be saved but then be rejected because they are on the wrong list. Rather, we are all dead in sin and unwilling to seek God on our own. A true, genuine desire for salvation in Christ is in fact a mark of election, and therefore none who truly come to Christ for salvation will be turned away (John 6:37-40).

So just as God doesn’t choose to save certain people because they are better than others (unconditional election), neither does he choose not to save certain people because they are worse than others (unconditional reprobation, or double predestination). Rather, everybody is lost in sin and no one has anything to recommend them to God above anyone else. And so from this mass of fallen humanity, God chooses to redeem some and leave others.

The “seventh” point, the best-of-all-possible worlds, means that God governs the course of history so that, in the long run, his glory will be more fully displayed and his people more fully satisfied than would have been the case in any other world. If we look only at the way things are now in the present era of this fallen world, this is not the best-of-all-possible worlds. But if we look at the whole course of history, from creation to redemption to eternity and beyond, and see the entirety of God’s plan, it is the best-of-all-possible plans and leads to the best-of-all-possible eternities. And therefore this universe (and the events that happen in it from creation into eternity, taken as a whole) is the best-of-all-possible-worlds.

 

[MrW]

I’m glad that I don’t believe that, any of it.

 

[Piper]

I’m glad that I don’t believe that, any of it.

I respect and appreciate you, and you are entitled to that opinion. It is what I once held.

 

[MrW]

I understand. I was born and raised Primitive Baptist. When I started reading the Bible daily, I pretty much rejected both Calvinism and Arminianism. I just believe Scripture as I read it.

Thank you very much for your kind words. And I personally am glad for anyone and everyone who is saved, whatever their ism is. It will all be made clear in Heaven.

 

[taisto]

I understand. I was born and raised Primitive Baptist. When I started reading the Bible daily, I pretty much rejected both Calvinism and Arminianism. I just believe Scripture as I read it.

Thank you very much for your kind words. And I personally am glad for anyone and everyone who is saved, whatever their ism is. It will all be made clear in Heaven.

I have a hard time believing your second sentence. Your incapacity to articulate the basic principles of either Calvinism or Arminianism make this hard to believe.

 

[Piper]

I have a hard time believing your second sentence. Your incapacity to articulate the basic principles of either Calvinism or Arminianism make this hard to believe.

From what I've read, only on Wikipedia, Primitive Baptists are Calvinistic, and Probably hyper Calvinists. Is that fair?

 

[taisto]

From what I've read, only on Wikipedia, Primitive Baptists are Calvinistic, and Probably hyper Calvinists. Is that fair?

I am not a primitive Baptist. I agree with the 1689 London Baptist Confession, but I am not associated with primitive baptists. However, everyone who identifies with primitive Baptist, here, has a similar soteriology to Calvin (though they deny any connection to Calvin). I do not know if they would say there is no need to share the gospel, though I would consider such a view to be rebellion against Matthew 28 and the great commission.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

From what I've read, only on Wikipedia, Primitive Baptists are Calvinistic, and Probably hyper Calvinists. Is that fair?

Did you listen to the Michael Gowens sermon on the Primitive Baptist thread? he explains it extremely well.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I am not a primitive Baptist. I agree with the 1689 London Baptist Confession, but I am not associated with primitive baptists. However, everyone who identifies with primitive Baptist, here, has a similar soteriology to Calvin (though they deny any connection to Calvin). I do not know if they would say there is no need to share the gospel, though I would consider such a view to be rebellion against Matthew 28 and the great commission.

An opinion not based in reality… you are acting like a Pharisee accusing Jesus habit of curing people on The Sabbath as sinful under their rules. Listen to the Michael Gowens sermon vs your criticisms… you might just learn something.

 

[MrW]

I have a hard time believing your second sentence. Your incapacity to articulate the basic principles of either Calvinism or Arminianism make this hard to believe.

Whatever. I was in it before I was born and stayed there (had no choice) until I was old enough to make a choice. When back home, I still visit. They’re good folks.

 

[MrW]

From what I've read, only on Wikipedia, Primitive Baptists are Calvinistic, and Probably hyper Calvinists. Is that fair?

Yes. I think of them as hypers, and also the most honest Calvinists. They firmly believe in election, so much so that if you are a muslim, hindu, or atheist, but if elected by God, you’re going to Heaven. They don’t believe in evangelism, their preachers don’t go to Bible school (probably a good thing), they don’t have Sunday School (again probably a good thing), they have closed communion (wine, not grape juice), they was feet, they don’t support their preachers (they do give them offerings), no musical instruments, not even a pitch-pipe, and of course no missionaries.

I refer to Hardshell PB’s. I recall, I think, they also call themselves “Absoluters”. It’s strange to most of us, but they are good folks and I have no doubt they love the Lord, and I am NOT putting them down. It’s what they have been taught.

There are modern groups that are not that strict, such as some black congregations.

 

[JonC]

I am not a primitive Baptist. I agree with the 1689 London Baptist Confession, but I am not associated with primitive baptists. However, everyone who identifies with primitive Baptist, here, has a similar soteriology to Calvin (though they deny any connection to Calvin). I do not know if they would say there is no need to share the gospel, though I would consider such a view to be rebellion against Matthew 28 and the great commission.

Many Primitive Baptists do believe that it is wrong to evangelize. This was probably more common a century ago.

Daniel Parker was an early Primitive Baptists minister. He was very much opposed to missions. He believed that sharing the gospel was sinful as the elect would be saved...period. He also believed that non-white people were descendants of the Serpent while white people were descendants of Adam.

Not all two-seed Baptists believe that non-White people are of the seed of the Serpent.


Primitive Baptists share a lot in common with Calvinists.

If you read the PM explanations of why they are not Calvinists....well...that doesn't help because they typically misrepresent Calvinism.

But for two-seed Primitive Baptists there is a difference in how they come to their conclusions.

 

[Piper]

Many Primitive Baptists do believe that it is wrong to evangelize. This was probably more common a century ago.

Daniel Parker was an early Primitive Baptists minister. He was very much opposed to missions. He believed that sharing the gospel was sinful as the elect would be saved...period. He also believed that non-white people were descendants of the Serpent while white people were descendants of Adam.

Not all two-seed Baptists believe that non-White people are of the seed of the Serpent.


Primitive Baptists share a lot in common with Calvinists.

If you read the PM explanations of why they are not Calvinists....well...that doesn't help because they typically misrepresent Calvinism.

But for two-seed Primitive Baptists there is a difference in how they come to their conclusions.

Thanks for this, Jon. I did not know that they do not believe in Evangelism. Jesus last words to us were to go, make disciples, baptize and teach. I'm sure you and I agree on that much.

 

[Alan Gross]

So just as God doesn’t choose to save certain people because they are better than others (unconditional election), neither does he choose not to save certain people because they are worse than others (unconditional reprobation, or double predestination).

Rather, everybody is lost in sin and no one has anything to recommend them to God above anyone else. And so from this mass of fallen humanity, God chooses to redeem some and leave others.

When you say this, below, I believe that covers the subject.

They were in sin when He found them and He leaves them in it.

No activity of predestination needed.

Rather, everybody is lost in sin and no one has anything to recommend them to God above anyone else. And so from this mass of fallen humanity, God chooses to redeem some and leave others.

The “sixth” point, double predestination, is simply the flip side of unconditional election. Just as God chooses whom he will save without regard to any distinctives in the person (Ephesians 1:5-6; Acts 13:48; Revelation 17:8),

so also he decides whom he will not save without regard to any distinctives in the individual (John 10:26; 12:37-40; Romans 9:11-18; 1 Peter 2:7-8)

By definition, the decision to elect some individuals to salvation necessarily implies the decision not to save those that were not chosen. God ordains not only that some will be rescued from his judgment, but that others will undergo that judgment.

I believe that they are left. Negatively

No 'decision', or 'ordaining' required. Not in a positive effort. See blue below.

I see what you are saying and that you believe it's just automatic to assume, "by definition", however, I don't believe there any need to go there.

Try, "negative reprobation" and as a Decree, "Preterition".

"Supralapsarian scheme: which considers the objects of election
and reprobation as men either already created, but not fallen, or to be created,
and in the pure mass of creatureship, but not as men not yet considered,
whether they should be created or no.

"Besides, he confounds, as these men usually do,
the decree of negative with positive reprobation,
or the decree of preterition with that of damnation;

"whereas the Supralapsarians, though they think men
were not considered as sinners in the act of preterition, or passing by some,
when others were chosen;

"yet they always suppose men to be considered as sinners
in the decree of damnation, and that God appointed none but sinners,
and no man but for sin, to everlasting torments;
and where is the cruelty of this doctrine?"

 

[kyredneck]

They’re good folks.

Yes, they indeed are.

 

[taisto]

An opinion not based in reality… you are acting like a Pharisee accusing Jesus habit of curing people on The Sabbath as sinful under their rules. Listen to the Michael Gowens sermon vs your criticisms… you might just learn something.

An observation is not an accusation. Take a look in the mirror.

 

[Piper]

One of my best friends for 35 years is an Arminian. He is not theologically deep, and he just scoffs at my Calvinism. But we are civil with each other and treat each other like educated gentlemen. Sometimes, we treat each other on this forum like Nazis, or mass murderers. Gentlemen, we will spend eternity with each other, all premillenial and Calvinistic. LOL

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

An observation is not an accusation. Take a look in the mirror.

Cute… your the Pharisee around here, not I.

 

[taisto]

One of my best friends for 35 years is an Arminian. He is not theologically deep, and he just scoffs at my Calvinism. But we are civil with each other and treat each other like educated gentlemen. Sometimes, we treat each other on this forum like Nazis, or mass murderers. Gentlemen, we will spend eternity with each other, all premillenial and Calvinistic. LOL

Well, you got this correct:
"we will spend eternity with each other."

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

One of my best friends for 35 years is an Arminian. He is not theologically deep, and he just scoffs at my Calvinism. But we are civil with each other and treat each other like educated gentlemen. Sometimes, we treat each other on this forum like Nazis, or mass murderers. Gentlemen, we will spend eternity with each other, all premillenial and Calvinistic. LOL

Well not Calvinistic anyhow.