A question for my fellow Calvinists

[Reynolds]

For sure. The hardest thing for me is to try to remain silent when some non-Calvinist mis-explains what Calvinists believe.

The problem is that in most cases a sect of Calvinists Calvinists do believe just like what that "some non-Calvinist" says. TC was the resident expert here. When asked certain questions by me about some of his beliefs, I found he and John Macarthur were in total disagreement.

 

[Reformed]

The flaw in adopting the term "Reformed" is that it carries a lot more baggage than just soteriology.

From my perspective, it is welcome "baggage". Besides being a Calvinist, I am confessional, amillennial, a covenant theologian, and believe in the Regulative Principle of Worship. The covenant theology I subscribe to is uniquely Baptist. That said, I understand and respect the fact that many Calvinistic Baptists limit their Reformed side to just soteriology.

 

[Benjamin]

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 .

I define the "high" as a Strict/Hard Determinist whose logic unavoidably brings him to Fatalistic Theology, but at least his logic is consistent, and the "low" as a Compatibilist/Soft Determinist who is at least smart to recognize the need to maintain Free Will and avoid Theistic Fatalism but whose logic always fallaciously amounts to trying to have volition both true and not true.

 

[JonC]

I define the "high" as a Strict/Hard Determinist whose logic unavoidably brings him to Fatalistic Theology, but at least his logic is consistent, and the "low" as a Compatibilist/Soft Determinist who is at least smart to recognize the need to maintain Free Will and avoid Theistic Fatalism but whose logic always fallaciously amounts to trying to have volition both true and not true.

Perhaps "High" and "Low" is confusing here. I typically view the terms as describing churches in regards to their formal degree.

Where would you place people like the "Fantastic John's" (John Calvin, Johnathan Edwards, John Piper, and Jonc ) who believe that Christ died for mankind as a whole without exception yet that even those who perish were predestined for such a fate?

 

[Dave G]

Where would you place people like the "Fantastic John's" (John Calvin, Johnathan Edwards, John Piper, and Jonc ) who believe that Christ died for mankind as a whole without exception yet that even those who perish were predestined for such a fate?

Well, my initial understanding of what you've just posted, tells me that you do not believe in "Particular Redemption" , at least in the detailed sense.
That Christ's death was for the elect, that His blood cleansed them and redeemed them, and that His resurrection was for them...not the unbeliever.

Please keep in mind that it wasn't all that long ago that I believed very similar to what you seem to be stating, Jon...so far be it from me to slam you.
Any time you'd like to discuss it, I can tell you how I believe the Lord got me there...but I'm finding, even in my personal interactions among my small fellowship, that showing someone and letting God show someone, are two entirely different things with different approaches.

 

[JonC]

Well, my initial understanding of what you've just posted, tells me that you do not believe in "Particular Redemption" , in in the detailed sense.
That Christ's death was for the elect, that His blood cleansed them and redeemed them, and that His resurrection was for them...not the unbeliever.

Please keep in mind that it wasn't all that long ago that I believed very similar to what you seem to be stating, Jon...so far be it from me to slam you.
Any time you'd like to discuss it, I can tell you how I believe the Lord got me there...but I'm finding, even in my personal interactions among my small fellowship, that showing someone and letting God show someone, are two entirely different things with different approaches.

I'd love to discuss it. Perhaps we can start a thread.

I believe Christ died to save those who believe (the elect) and not to save those who were not given Him by the Father (the reprobate predestined to perish). I would be very interested in sering how this is less than "particular redemption" (as I prefer that term to "limited atonement".

In truth, I am not sure how anyone could affirm "double predestination" without affirming "paticular redemption", but I am open to your observations. That is why this forum exists.

Do you not believe that Christ died to save only the elect? What about reprobation?

 

[Dave G]

Do you not believe that Christ died to save only the elect?

I do.

What about reprobation?

To me, it's a Scriptural fact.

God reveals Himself, and hides Himself.
From whomsoever He wishes.

 

[JonC]

I do.

To me, it's a Scriptural fact.

God reveals Himself, and hides Himself.
From whomsoever He wishes.

Yes!!!! A fellow heretic .

Reprobation is no longer "in style" amongst Calvinists. I thought I was the only Calvinist on this forum who affirmed the doctrine (I've been called quite a few names in the past for that view).

 

[Dave G]

Yes!!!! A fellow heretic .

I have a feeling that Willis ( @SovereignGrace ) is another.

Reprobation is no longer "in style" amongst Calvinists.

I don't much care for "what's in style".
If I see something in God's word, the likelihood is, I'm going to state it... and then suffer for it.

I thought I was the only Calvinist on this forum who affirmed the doctrine (I've been called quite a few names in the past for that view).

There are people on this forum that hate me for it, as well.
...and that's after they cool off for hating me for being a "Calvinist".

Most of them I have on "ignore", because I figure if they don't have anything edifying to say, then I don't need to listen to them or read what they slam me with.
That said, I will always try to edify them, given the chance.

 

[JonC]

I have a feeling that Willis ( @SovereignGrace ) is another.


I don't much care for "what's in style".
If I see something in God's word, the likelihood is, I'm going to state it, and then suffer for it.

There are people on this forum that hate me for it, as well.
...and that's after they cool off for hating me for being a "Calvinist".

That is interesting. I have known @SovereignGrace a long time but I don't know if we've discussed the topic.

 

[Reformed]

Yes!!!! A fellow heretic .

Reprobation is no longer "in style" amongst Calvinists. I thought I was the only Calvinist on this forum who affirmed the doctrine (I've been called quite a few names in the past for that view).

If by reprobation you mean double predestination, then get in line.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[JonC]

If by reprobation you mean double predestination, then get in line.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Really?

It's been awhile but when I last argued for "double predestination" I felt the full weight of "Elijah syndrome" .

TC and internet theologian all but called me a heretic, and I am not certain they didn't call me that too.

 

[Reformed]

Really?

It's been awhile but when I last argued for "double predestination" I felt the full weight of "Elijah syndrome" .

TC and internet theologian all but called me a heretic, and I am not certain they didn't call me that too.

I have been called a heretic by actual heretics. I consider that a badge of honor.

Actually, I have a thick hide when it comes to that stuff. Also, it is only an issue on a message board like this.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[JonC]

I have been called a heretic by actual heretics. I consider that a badge of honor.

Actually, I have a thick hide when it comes to that stuff. Also, it is only an issue on a message board like this.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

The term never bothers me. One man's reash is another Man's treasure.

Perhaps this would be an interesting topic (especially if we throw Edwardian Calvinism in the mix).

Maybe the board is dispositioned to handle the topic?

 

[Reformed]

The term never bothers me. One man's reash is another Man's treasure.

Perhaps this would be an interesting topic (especially if we throw Edwardian Calvinism in the mix).

Maybe the board is dispositioned to handle the topic?

What topic? Calling Calvinists heretics?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Dave G]

Perhaps this would be an interesting topic (especially if we throw Edwardian Calvinism in the mix).

Maybe the board is dispositioned to handle the topic?

I see no reason to discuss Edwards, because if he was even close to Fuller in his reasoning, then I have a feeling that I would disagree with him, too...as much as I like some of his sermons.
But, perhaps consulting threads like these will give you some idea of what Jonathan Edwards may have taught:

The Call to Believe is Not Without a Promise
The Missing Balance in Calvinism
Inability of the Will is Never Literal

I've also read his, "Freedom of the Will" to some extent, and I firmly disagree with his conclusions.
Not only did I not see any Scripture quoted or even used in reference, I saw no reason to agree with what I believe to be material that is purely philosophical in nature.

To me, Edwards was writing a treatise...not an exposition of Scripture.

 

[atpollard]

Such as Infant Baptism and the whole of Covenant Theology?

Exactly.
Sometimes Amillennialism and Cessationism get thrown in there, too.

 

[atpollard]

The problem is that in most cases a sect of Calvinists Calvinists do believe just like what that "some non-Calvinist" says. TC was the resident expert here. When asked certain questions by me about some of his beliefs, I found he and John Macarthur were in total disagreement.

So God is a monster who delights in creating people and forcing them to be reprobate robots just as God forces the elect to be obedient worshiping robots?
... And of course, all of this is just the 400 year old invention of John Calvin, the man who murdered Servetus, and none of it is found in scripture.

On a serious note:
Hypercalvinism exists, but that is not traditional Calvinist Theology nor is it a position generally held by most modern Calvinists. A far more typical misinformation is that Total Depravity means that everyone is as evil as they can be and no person is capable of any act of kindness. That is NOT my understanding of Total Depravity. That is not the explanation presented in the WCF or the writing of R.C. Sproul or the definition in the Theopedia or how C.A.R.M. explains it. That is not the definition in any Calvinist source that I am familiar with. However, it appears to be a popular anti-Calvinist definition of what Calvinists believe among the internet at large.

 

[Aaron]

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!

I have no objection to the term.

 

[Reformed1689]

Yes!!!! A fellow heretic .

Reprobation is no longer "in style" amongst Calvinists. I thought I was the only Calvinist on this forum who affirmed the doctrine (I've been called quite a few names in the past for that view).

Are you referring to the fact that some must necessarily be predestined for destruction if they are not predestined to salvation? YUP.