A question for my fellow Calvinists

[JonC]

High Calvinist is not a term unique to my vocabulary.. A high Calvinist is NOT a hyper Calvinist.

I define a high Calvinist as a consistent Calvinist, a low Calvinist as a Calvinist who does not acknowledge the logical conclusion of his position .

 

[Reformed]

No. If it were only me I would wonder. But others (and other Calvinists) have noticed a trend among few people.

Another reason I do not use the term is it is almost meaningless. People understand Calvinism by stereotyping and characterization.

Also, we have 5 pt, 4 ot, 3 pt ect. The points work together.

Jon, just to make sure I understand you, I asked, "Take the handful of Calvinists on the BB that you think are troublemakers out of the equation. There are quite a few Calvinists on the board. How does that affect your opinion of the remaining Calvinists? Would you feel comfortable putting your arm around their shoulder and calling them brother?" Your answer was "No." You are not willing to put your arm around the shoulder (figurately speaking) and calling "brother" those Calvinists you do not consider to be part of the troublemakers on the board. Am I reading you correctly?

As far and 4 and 3 point Calvinists, well, you and I both know how the term is commonly used. Soteriologically it has always stood for the 5 points of T.U.L.I.P. Synergism has never been part of Calvinistic soteriology. Dispensationalism? Premillennialism? Normative worship? Calvinism does not address those things because they are not strictly soteriological, so a Calvinist can believe those things. I am going to stand with the brand of Calvinism that is ubiquitous with T.U.L.I.P.

 

[Reformed]

High Calvinist is not a term unique to my vocabulary.. A high Calvinist is NOT a hyper Calvinist.

Brother, I understand. I am not taking issue with you. I just do not like dividing the term. One is either a Calvinist that accepts all 5 points of T.U.L.I.P or one is not. I do not even believe in Hyper Calvinists. So-called Hyper Calvinists are professing Christians who are in error. Of course, this is just my opinion.

 

[JonC]

Jon, just to make sure I understand you, I asked, "Take the handful of Calvinists on the BB that you think are troublemakers out of the equation. There are quite a few Calvinists on the board. How does that affect your opinion of the remaining Calvinists? Would you feel comfortable putting your arm around their shoulder and calling them brother?" Your answer was "No." You are not willing to put your arm around the shoulder (figurately speaking) and calling "brother" those Calvinists you do not consider to be part of the troublemakers on the board. Am I reading you correctly?

As far and 4 and 3 point Calvinists, well, you and I both know how the term is commonly used. Soteriologically it has always stood for the 5 points of T.U.L.I.P. Synergism has never been part of Calvinistic soteriology. Dispensationalism? Premillennialism? Normative worship? Calvinism does not address those things because they are not strictly soteriological, so a Calvinist can believe those things. I am going to stand with the brand of Calvinism that is ubiquitous with T.U.L.I.P.

I am a Calvinist. Take away the "cultish" ones here and my opinion of the remainder is that they are brothers. I would gladly put my arm around them jest as I would my non-Calvinistic brothers as we would be united in Christ (even if we disagree in other issues).

My issue is not Calvinism (a view I hold) but unChristian behavior.

I will not put my figurative arm around the problematic pups except to draw them in...this cannot be done if the pups are unwilling to embrace a Christ-like attitude in dealing with those who oppose their view.

 

[Reynolds]

Brother, I understand. I am not taking issue with you. I just do not like dividing the term. One is either a Calvinist that accepts all 5 points of T.U.L.I.P or one is not. I do not even believe in Hyper Calvinists. So-called Hyper Calvinists are professing Christians who are in error. Of course, this is just my opinion.

But one can accept the points and deny the implications.

 

[Reformed]

I am a Calvinist. Take away the "cultish" ones here and my opinion of the remainder is that they are brothers. I would gladly put my arm around them jest as I would my non-Calvinistic brothers as we would be united in Christ (even if we disagree in other issues).

That is why I asked you to clarify your comments from post #57. Thank you for doing so.

I will not put my figurative arm around the problematic pups except to draw them in...this cannot be done if the pups are unwilling to embrace a Christ-like attitude in dealing with those who oppose their view.

Well, if I understand them correctly, those pups kind of feel the same way about you. I do not have any constructive ideas in that area except for peaceful separation for the time being.

 

[Reformed]

But one can accept the points and deny the implications.

Anybody can profess anything and not be true to that profession. I am not concerned with those who do that. As Christians, we should be honest with one another.

Colossians 3:8-10 8 But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, 10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him--

 

[Reynolds]

Anybody can profess anything and not be true to that profession. I am not concerned with those who do that. As Christians, we should be honest with one another.

Colossians 3:8-10 8 But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, 10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him--

The dealing with the implications defines the classification.

 

[JonC]

That is why I asked you to clarify your comments from post #57. Thank you for doing so.



Well, if I understand them correctly, those pups kind of feel the same way about you. I do not have any constructive ideas in that area except for peaceful separation for the time being.

I am not sure who you are speaking of (that you know how they feel about traditional Calvinists).

My response was to the OP. I am a Calvinist who prefers the title "Christian" to distinguish myself from the "cultish" pups (the immature, unChrist-like).

I do believe the godly are to separate from them.

 

[Dave G]

I am a Calvinist who prefers the title "Christian" to distinguish myself from the "cultish" pups (the immature, unChrist-like).

...who, even though a mess, might very well still be your brothers and sisters, even though they, through the Spirit, haven't yet fully gotten a "handle" on that wicked flesh ( Romans 7:14-25, Galatians 5:13-26 ).

I'm finding that the hardest parts about being one of God's children, are both waiting on the Lord and being patient with my brothers and sisters...especially the younger ones in the faith.

 

[JonC]

I

...who, even though a mess, might very well still be your brothers and sisters, even though they, through the Spirit, haven't yet fully gotten a "handle" on that wicked flesh ( Romans 7:14-25, Galatians 5:13-26 ).

I'm finding that the hardest parts about being one of God's children, are both waiting on the Lord and being patient with my brothers and sisters...especially the younger ones in the faith.

I often don't have the patience I should with these types. They just do so much damage.

 

[1689Dave]

I think we need to realize that Calvinism is pure logic with a true starting point. And the most wicked can speak the truth and write volumes using it. But those with a heart of love will speak it in love.

 

[akajohndoe]

My objection to the term (within Baptist circles ... i.e., and affirmation of T.U.L.I.P.) is that it links me with militant Calvinism.

I am SBC. The SBC has seen it's fair share of "cage staged" Calvinists. This has encouraged others to be anti-Calvinistic.

I hate to say it, but of Baptistic leanings Calvinism has earned it's reputation for spreading hate and discord above any other position. The few very vocal "hypers" have given the group at large a bad name.

Personally, I do not want to be associated with anyone who holds Calvinism as their religion. That is the issue with me and the term. I'd prefer to explain my position rather than be lumped in with the ungodly minority who hold my position.

 

[Dave G]

I hate to say it, but of Baptistic leanings Calvinism has earned it's reputation for spreading hate and discord above any other position. The few very vocal "hypers" have given the group at large a bad name.

I've seen that on the "Arminian", "Wesleyan" side as well...and experienced it first-hand.
I've also seen it from the "Traditionalist" side, but not quite as much.
Check YouTube comment sections...they are very enlightening.

I've also experienced it, first-hand, from several "Traditionalists"...and one of them was a prior member of this board.
He lives in Israel.

So, I find that it's not limited to one or the other, but there are groups on all sides of it that act both ungodly, and godly in their demeanor.

Personally, I do not want to be associated with anyone who holds Calvinism as their religion. That is the issue with me and the term. I'd prefer to explain my position rather than be lumped in with the ungodly minority who hold my position.

I can understand why you might feel that way.
I have my "hot buttons" and things that grieve me, as well.

As for "Calvinism" versus Jesus Christ...to me, He comes first, doctrine a close second.
But they are also inseparable.. as who He is to me, is Who His word defines Him as.

After all of it I'd say, do your best to obey the Lord and His commands, and rest in Him and His promises.
It will all come out "in the wash".

 

[Dave G]

I often don't have the patience I should with these types. They just do so much damage.

I realize this may be hard to swallow, but ultimately, it doesn't matter whether we find it difficult.
We are still commanded to bear one anothers' burdens and put up with the unruly...even though we may have to separate from them at times in discipline.

Rebuking, even though unpopular, has its place.
Despite their behavior, we admonish them to obey the Lord, and leave it to Him.

The damage is reparable, too, in the long run.
Grace is an amazing thing.


What I'm finding, though, is that "the buck stops with me".
The easy part is to get angry...trust me, I know what I'm talking about.

The hard part is what I mentioned in post #70.
Sometimes it's very hard, and I fail miserably at times.

 

[JonC]

I realize this may be hard to swallow, but it doesn't matter whether we find it difficult.
We are still commanded to bear one anothers' burdens and put up with the unruly...even though we may have to separate from them at times in discipline.

Rebuking, even though unpopular, has its place.
Despite their behavior, we admonish them to obey the Lord, and leave it to Him.

The damage is reparable, too, in the long run.
Grace is an amazing thing.


What I'm finding, though, is that "the buck stops with me".
The easy part is to get angry...trust me, I know what I'm talking about.

The hard part is what I mentioned in post #70.
Sometimes it's very hard, and I fail miserably at times.

To a degree I agree. But at the same time we are to judge fruit and act accordingly. We are not to tolerate ungodlyness among the breathern.

Within an online forum it is different. We deal with behavior, not discipleship. We are not a church. Here members should be able to discuss their views without other people ganging up on them or trying to shut them down. And no one has the right to tell another person what that other person believes. This is a Christian forum.

 

[Dave G]

Within an online forum it is different. We deal with behavior, not discipleship. We are not a church. Here members should be able to discuss their views without other people ganging up on them or trying to shut them down. And no one has the right to tell another person what that other person believes. This is a Christian forum.

Jon,
I realize that being on a public forum is different than being among a local body of believers.
But I find it difficult separating one from the other.

Yes, the reality is that there are many professing Christians on this site... and within the membership, there are vastly differing beliefs, in some cases.
So, an accommodation has been made to deal with the reality of it all, and results in a "ecumenical" approach.

While I might not agree with it, and I don't agree with the views of most here, I also recognize that if discipline is to be maintained, it might very well be good to bring in some of the type that is directed at the local assemblies...in a general fashion.
I've seen that suspension and banning for bad behavior is a regular occurrence, and that is good...it introduces consequences for such.


But I also think that if a few more things that applied to the local assemblies were instituted, you might see some of the trouble makers either toe the line, or stop posting altogether.
You want more control over bad behavior?
The Bible has the answer for addressing the "flesh" and it's tendency to get carried away.


My opinion, of course.

 

[1689Dave]

One thing stands out in my working years is the harsh treatment of employees from Arminian, Baptist Arminian and Lutheran business owners. None of my bosses were Calvinists so I can't compare. But I think Calvinist "bad boys" are a far stretch better than these.

 

[JonC]

Jon,
I realize that being on a public forum is different than being among a local body of believers.
But I find it difficult separating one from the other.

Yes, the reality is that there are many professing Christians on this site... and within the membership, there are vastly differing beliefs, in some cases.
So, an accommodation has been made to deal with the reality of it all, and results in a "ecumenical" approach.

While I might not agree with it, and I don't agree with the views of most here, I also recognize that if discipline is to be maintained, it might very well be good to bring in some of the type that is directed at the local assemblies...in a general fashion.
I've seen that suspension and banning for bad behavior is a regular occurrence, and that is good...it introduces consequences for such.


But I also think that if a few more things that applied to the local assemblies were instituted, you might see some of the trouble makers either toe the line, or stop posting altogether.
You want more control over bad behavior?
The Bible has the answer for addressing the "flesh" and it's tendency to get carried away.


My opinion, of course.

I think as a board we have to look after the board as a whole. As such, I do not see much room for groups attacking or trying to silence others regardless of theological positions.

But in regards to the OP, one of the reasons I do not advertise the label "Calvinist" because I simply do not want to be lumped in with any of these Atnifa-like groups. Is this fair? No, they are a minority. But they are often the most vocal.

 

[Reformed]

Actually, after we move past all the threads about unchristian-like behavior, we are back to the reason(s) why some soteriological Calvinists reject the term. @JonC and @Dave Gilbert have articulated why they do not appropriate the term. I feel confident that others like @Iconoclast and @SovereignGrace are fine with the term, as am I. Calvinism (a.k.a. the doctrines of grace) have been a blessing to me. It changed how I view grace, God's sovereignty, and God's holiness. It also exposed how ugly the sin in my life really is. So, while I do not advertise my Calvinism, I do embrace the truth it points to in the Word of God.