A question for my fellow Calvinists

[JonC]

What heresy is that JonC.....? Describe it for us by all means?
Are you suggesting such a heresy has appeared on Baptistboard?

What I suggested, @Iconoclast , is that such a heresy has "infiltrated Christianity". It's right there in post # 20 (if you are having difficulty I refer you to that post...i.e., the one you quoted). There is no need to make assumptions, I think that the statement is plain enough as stated. It is not up to me to explain what you do not understand (sadly, I'm sure there is a reason for that as well).

Insofar as the BaptistBoard goes, we are open to all professing Christians who are members of accepted denominations. We are primarily a Baptist board but accept other denominations in non-Baptist sections of the board.

If you are confused on this point, please reference the "terms and rules" at the bottom of the page. If a person falls into the category we accept their profession without questioning their Christianity, at least not on the public forum (although I have my doubts about some based on their character). "Heresy" in terms of the BaptistBoard would be, by definition, a violation of membership on the forum.

If you are asking me if there are some who will hear the words "I never knew you" on "that day", I am afraid so. It is heartbreaking, but there are some I believe have misplaced their faith - possibly without even realizing it. It is both sad and terrifying.

 

[JonC]

I’ll offer an example of what I am speaking of by personal experience.

I am a Calvinist and I have affirmed the Five Points as well as double predestination for over a decade on the Baptist Board.

But at the same time I’ve been opposed to anti-campish/ anti-cult like behavior which had put me at odds with some “Calvinists”. They say I am not a “Calvinist” because I do not join their “jihad” against non-Calvinists. They say I am not a Calvinist because I dare to “like” posts by non-Calvinists on the BaptistBoard.

Those type of people are what I consider “wolves in sheep clothing”. Some of them, I believe, pretend to be Christians when all they really are is Calvinistic (they hold a biblically themed Calvinistic philosophy). Their god is not God, but rather their theology. And, if Scripture is correct, they will hear “I never knew you” as they are cast out. I believe some will be surprised by this declaration.

That said, there are some who are saved among the bunch. This so called “caged staged” state of thinking is an expression of a deeper faith. But for some, Calvinism is their religion, it is their gospel (not that Calvinism is the gospel to them, but that it is actually their gospel – the object of their faith).

How often have we seen one of the Calvinistic cult pick on a non-Calvinist without a true Calvinist intervening? That is the issue I have here (and the same goes with non-Calvinism). We have to act like Christians and identify the wolves among us. I don't think that some even realize they are wolves.

I know that this, as @Reformed has pointed out, can apply to many other views. I pick on Calvinism because it is my own position in regards to affirming the Five Points within a Baptist context.

 

[Reformed]

I wish Christians would inforce Christian behavior. Too often I see Christians being silent if the unChristian behavior supports their position.

Jon, now we have gone from your problems with fellow Calvinists to Christians in general. I am not sure how you see things from your end of the world but I am grieved that you see so much unchristian behavior. I suppose there have always been Christians who act contrary to their profession. Maybe that is why Paul told the Christians in Colossae to walk in a manner worthy of their profession (Colossians 1:10)? Also, I am not sure how we are supposed to "enforce Christian behavior". Matthew 18 provides the model for church discipline but outside of the local church, we cannot enforce anything. We can confront, rebuke, or offer counsel but we cannot force something to change their ways.

 

[JonC]

Jon, now we have gone from your problems with fellow Calvinists to Christians in general. I am not sure how you see things from your end of the world but I am grieved that you see so much unchristian behavior. I suppose there have always been Christians who act contrary to their profession. Maybe that is why Paul told the Christians in Colossae to walk in a manner worthy of their profession (Colossians 1:10)? Also, I am not sure how we are supposed to "enforce Christian behavior". Matthew 18 provides the model for church discipline but outside of the local church, we cannot enforce anything. We can confront, rebuke, or offer counsel but we cannot force something to change their ways.

Yes, you took us from discussing those within our "camp" to discussing "anti-calvinsts" as well with your previous reply.

I can state that militant anti-Calvinists are just as bad as the Calvinists you are describing but I do not know how that forwards any meaningful discussion.

I cannot reply on behalf of a position I do not hold, but like you suggest this anti-Christian behavior is not limited to Cslvinism.

As a Calvinist I believe we have to be vocal about those who hijack our position under the pretense of true Christianity.

Insofar as a meaningful discussion, I was only answering the OP in regards to why I do not like the title "Calvinist". It means to so many Christians "Pharisee".

 

[Reformed]

But at the same time I’ve been anti-campish/ anti-cult like behavior which had put me at odds with some “Calvinists”. They say I am not a “Calvinist” because I do not join their “jihad” against non-Calvinists. They say I am not a Calvinist because I dare to “like” posts by non-Calvinists on the BaptistBoard.

Ah! Jon, so is post #19 about your interactions with fellow Calvinists on the Baptist Board? I am not the official gatekeeper of Calvinism but if you affirm T.U.L.I.P. then you are a Calvinist in my book.

How often have we seen one of the Calvinistic cult pick on a non-Calvinist without a true Calvinist intervening?

Jon, are we really going to go down this path? You are going to shame other members of this board because they do not police those you deem as offenders? Come on now. I appeal to you as a brother. I know for a fact that I have both PMed fellow Calvinist brethren about regrettable things they have posted as well as corrected them in open forum. There are many threads that I do not participate in because they cultivate intemperate responses. That is the same reason there are members of the board I do not engage with. I say this so you will not be so quick to judge motives for a perceived lack of response to those things you consider shameful.

Honestly, I do not know how this thread got to this place so quickly.

 

[Reformed]

Yes, you took us from discussing those within our "camp" to discussing "anti-calvinsts" as well with your previous reply.

Well, Jon, I was following your lead which kind of revealed your thoughts as expressed in post #22. I think it would be wise for all of us to move along.

 

[Reformed]

Insofar as a meaningful discussion, I was only answering the OP in regards to why I do not like the title "Calvinist". It means to so many Christians "Pharisee".

I agree. Some people do view it that way.

 

[JonC]

Ah! Jon, so is post #19 about your interactions with fellow Calvinists on the Baptist Board? I am not the official gatekeeper of Calvinism but if you affirm T.U.L.I.P. then you are a Calvinist in my book.



Jon, are we really going to go down this path? You are going to shame other members of this board because they do not police those you deem as offenders? Come on now. I appeal to you as a brother. I know for a fact that I have both PMed fellow Calvinist brethren about regrettable things they have posted as well as corrected them in open forum. There are many threads that I do not participate in because they cultivate intemperate responses. That is the same reason there are members of the board I do not engage with. I say this so you will not be so quick to judge motives for a perceived lack of response to those things you consider shameful.

Honestly, I do not know how this thread got to this place so quickly.

The OP asks about the title "Calvinist". I do not like the title because it associates me with "Calvinists" who are anything but Christian in their behavior. It is simple.

 

[JonC]

I agree. Some people do view it that way.

That is why I do not tend to use the term.

I do not want to be associated with "Calvinists" who are "wolves in sheep clothing".

If you wonder why, look at a few we have right here.

 

[Benjamin]

When you learn a little, you feel like you know a lot, but when you learn a lot you realize how little you know. IOW’s the thing about Calvinists is they learn the TULIP and a few prooftexts and think they know a lot but if they learned a lot they would realize how little they know.

 

[Dave G]

So, I have a few questions for my Calvinist brethren who do not like the term.

1. What is your objection to the term?

2. Do you have an issue with Baptists who embrace the term?

3. What are your thoughts of an alternative descriptor such as Monergist?

Thank you and Soli Deo Gloria!

1) My own personal objection is, some, like a few that shall remain nameless, keep making the observation that I am stating things differently than other "mainline" traditional "Calvinists", instead of going along with something John Calvin said. My answer is..."So..what?"

2) Most of the time, Yes...Keep in mind that I also feel, at the same time, that I am not going to win in a battle of numbers. If someone is determined to slap that label on me, there isn't a whole lot I can do about it.

But the sense I'm getting from the "non-Calvinist" side, is that they would love for me to embrace it...similar to a Native American embracing the term, "Indian" or "Red Skin" or an African-American the "N-word". I think that Baptists who embrace the term are only giving the other side what they want...to self-identify with John Calvin, instead of the Bible, and then act surprised that I don't march in lock step with everything he may have taught.

A similar thing could be said for the "Traditionalist", who teaches and believes 4 of the 5 points of "Wesleyan Arminianism" ( Source: An Outline of the FACTS of Arminianism vs. The TULIP of Calvinism ), but don't consider themselves "Arminian" because they don't agree with loss of salvation.
I picked up on this distinction when I talked to one of my former pastors about loss of salvation. He thought that because he believed in "Prevenient Grace" ( the "F" in "FACTS" ), which is one of the doctrines of modern "Arminianism" and one in which all "Evangelical Arminians" hold to, then he wasn't an "Arminian".

I held off trying to tell him that "Arminianism" teaches more than just one "point".

3) It wouldn't work.
Why?
Because similar to the objectors naming the re-baptizers "Baptists" or "Anabaptist" ( again-baptize ), the opposition with always call a person by the name that comes to mind.
Then it becomes a matter of embracing the term that someone else pins on you.

Again, the reverse is true.
To most "Calvinists", "Traditionalists" are known by the label, "Arminian", even though they do not believe strictly what Arminius taught.

 

[Rockson]

I agree, there are plenty of Calvinists who are not playing with a full deck. But there is no shortage of Arminians/Synergists/Wesleyans/[insert any other term you like] that are also batty between the ears.

No there isn't any shortage on either side of people who may indeed have the right doctrine but the wrong spirit in who they are and how the present themselves. Jesus said be wise as serpents and harmless as doves and that should speak to everyone in whatever camp. Sadly many won't allow it to do that. . Winning an argument is the ONLY thing some people have in mind certainly not having any love and grace in how they speak.

 

[JonC]

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
are full of passionate intensity." (Yeats)

 

[Dave G]

Unfortunately, in order for him to teach in his church, he has to put a check on his theology.

Rather than put a "check" on sharing my understanding of Scripture, I just simply stopped going to church altogether.
What does that accomplish?
Quite a bit, from my perspective.

As I see it, they don't need to feel any discomfort because I'm not there throwing a wrench into things for them.
Take the "heretic" out of the equation and they can all breathe easier.

They can then have their "stand-up-sit-down-sing-3-songs-pass-the-plate-preach-the-inspiring-sermon-and-go-home-to-watch-a-movie-services" all they want, and I won't stand in their way...

I am of a different mindset and do not feel I need to apologize or hide what I believe.

Well, I don't hide what I believe on this forum, but at least here I can't get thrown out of a meeting with people if I disagree with them.
In a visible church, it's all too easy to get asked to leave at the very slightest mention of the "U" or ( God forbid ), the "L".

It's also real easy to avoid the cliques and other politics if one simply removes themselves from all the heart-ache.
At the end of it all, it's easier being the "Calvinist" no one knows, than to be the "Calvinist" everyone hates.

 

[Reynolds]

Well, that really helps!

Low Calvinist = infralapsarian
High Calvinist = supralapsarian
A general Calvinist tries to blend and gets squished.

 

[JonC]

There seems to be a habit among some Calvinists saying that they are not Calvinists. They claim to be Mongergists soteriologically but distance themselves from the Calvinist label. In my conversations (on and offline), the two most popular reasons for rejecting the Calvinist moniker are 1. The scorn they receive over the term from Christians who are not Calvinists. 2. Disagreement with John Calvin on his other beliefs. Charles Spurgeon had no problem describing himself as a Calvinist because even in the 19th-century the term had become ubiquitous in describing Reformed soteriology only. Today, in the 21st-century, the term means the same thing. Calvinist does not mean embracing Presbyterian ecclesiology, paedobaptism, or even covenant theology (although many Calvinistic Baptists do hold to the latter).

So, I have a few questions for my Calvinist brethren who do not like the term.

1. What is your objection to the term?

2. Do you have an issue with Baptists who embrace the term?

3. What are your thoughts of an alternative descriptor such as Monergist?

Thank you and Soli Deo Gloria!

Back to the OP.

1. What is your objection to the term?

Stage Calvinists, many of whom I belueve are not even Christians based on their behavior.

2. Do you have an issue with Baptists who embrace the term?

No. I judge the tree by its fruit

3. What are your thoughts of an alternative descriptor such as Monergist?

I suggest sticking with "Christian" and explaining our positions. The problem with labels are problematic zealots who hijack those labels.

 

[Reformed]

I think that Baptists who embrace the term are only giving the other side what they want...to self-identify with John Calvin, instead of the Bible, and then act surprised that I don't march in lock step with everything he may have taught.

Dave, the "other side" can think what they want. Whether I identify with Calvinism or not, certain of them are going to excoriate me for my theology whether or not I embrace the term Calvinist. Why is the term important to me? First, it quickly identifies my soteriology, a doctrine that is vital to the Christian faith. Our understanding of salvation is not a secondary doctrine. Second, it connects me with other Baptists from history who held to the same doctrinal distinctives. Men like John Gill, Benjamin Keach, Charles Spurgeon, and John L. Dagg. Third, it connects me with contemporary Baptists like Paul Washer, Tom Ascol, Richard Barcellos, Sam Waldron, James Renihan, and Albert N. Martin et al, men who are committed to studying and teaching the whole counsel of God.

Now, I understand and respect those individuals who hold to Calvinist soteriology but refuse to be called a Calvinist. That is fine. It is my opinion that they unwittingly place themselves in the position of being called a "closet Calvinist" which is almost worse than identifying as such. But I have to honor their (your) conviction.

As far as marching in lock-step, that has never been a problem. The late TCassidy and I used to go at it over supralapsarianism and covenant theology and he was a Calvinist. Dr. Bob, who is not active on the BB as of late, is a Pre-Tribulation, Pre-Millennial, Dispensationalist and I am an Amillennial, Confessional, Covenant Theologian. I also believe in the Regulative Principle of Worship. So, I give other Calvinists plenty of reasons to try and take me to the woodshed. But @JonC 's concern about believing the Calvinist religion is valid. If any Christian is so consumed with their theological identity as opposed to their standing in Christ, there is a serious problem. While not having Calvinism or Arminianism in mind, the Apostle Paul rightly warned the Corinthians to 2 Corinthians 13:5, "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test?"

SDG!

 

[Reformed]

Low Calvinist = infralapsarian
High Calvinist = supralapsarian
A general Calvinist tries to blend and gets squished.

Now I know what you mean. I do not agree with those terms but at least I understand you. Thank you.

 

[Reformed]

Forgive this brief segway but when I mentioned the Rev. Albert N. Martin, this video clip came to mind. The production is overly dramatic but it highlights the ministry of a man who, while a "high Calvinist" as @Reynolds would say, was committed to preaching the whole truth contained in scripture. He has many wonderful sermons on YouTube and Sermon Audio.

 

[Reformed]

I do not like the title because it associates me with "Calvinists" who are anything but Christian in their behavior.

I see you got your broad brush out again, Jon. I know it is your opinion but it implicates each and every Calvinist. At least that is the only logical way to read your statement.

P.S. And have you ever thought that is why some Calvinists may have a problem with you? You are implicating an entire group. That is not bound to go over well.