A question for my fellow Calvinists

[Reynolds]

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.

Total Depravity is an interesting point. Any good or "kind" deed we do is a work.James is pretty plain that any and all works done outside Christ are to God as a bloody menstrual cloth. I would say the hypers are correct about total depravity. (That is my Classical Arminian view of Total Depravity.)

 

[atpollard]

Total Depravity is an interesting point. Any good or "kind" deed we do is a work.James is pretty plain that any and all works done outside Christ are to God as a bloody menstrual cloth. I would say the hypers are correct about total depravity. (That is my Classical Arminian view of Total Depravity.)

If EVERYONE is born as absolutely evil as they can be, then what did Jesus mean when he said:

[Luke 6:32-33 NASB] 32 "If you love those who love you, what credit is [that] to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 "If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is [that] to you? For even sinners do the same.

The Totally Immoral, 100% Evil would not repay love with love. An abusive drunk repays love with abuse.

I believe quite strongly that Total Depravity really means closer to Total Inability in modern English.

 

[Reynolds]

If EVERYONE is born as absolutely evil as they can be, then what did Jesus mean when he said:

[Luke 6:32-33 NASB] 32 "If you love those who love you, what credit is [that] to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 "If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is [that] to you? For even sinners do the same.

The Totally Immoral, 100% Evil would not repay love with love. An abusive drunk repays love with abuse.

I believe quite strongly that Total Depravity really means closer to Total Inability in modern English.

The love and good in that passage are man's love and man's good.
James 2:10
Is 64:6

 

[Dave G]

If EVERYONE is born as absolutely evil as they can be, then what did Jesus mean when he said:

[Luke 6:32-33 NASB] 32 "If you love those who love you, what credit is [that] to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 "If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is [that] to you? For even sinners do the same.

The Totally Immoral, 100% Evil would not repay love with love. An abusive drunk repays love with abuse.

I believe quite strongly that Total Depravity really means closer to Total Inability in modern English.

As do I.
When I was first exposed to the "Canons of Dordt", I thought to myself...what do they mean by "depravity"?
Rather than looking up the word in the dictionary, I simply went with what I had learned in English class..." totally depraved", in the moral sense.

Later on, I discovered that it means, "corruption"..."perversion", or "degradation".
That's what I see happening in Romans 1, to mankind in general.

 

[agedman]

Maybe. But I do not know how someone can claim to hold to TULIP and not hold to it at the same time. I know there are some individuals who claim to be Calvinists but do not believe in Limited (definite) Atonement or Perseverance on the Saints. They are not Calvinists in any sense.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

This is a problem for me.h

I have no desire to remove the thread from the OP, but my thinking does not agree that one must cling to all four points of the TULIP without allowing for modification.

I agree on four of the five points. Teach 4 of the 5 points. I must modify one.

I do not hold to the typical presentation by Calvinists of the atonement as it relates to the limit of blood supply.

Rather, (as I have posted extensively on the topic) the "L" is limited belief (as seen particularly from the writings of John).

I do not present the death and resurrection of Christ had or has any benefit to the unredeemed, such is for the chosen redeemed, only.

I do present that the blood was for the forgiveness of all sin of all creation, not just humans but the whole.

That does not mean all are sinless, and therefore all are not condemned. Such a presentation misrepresents for forgiveness does not mean consequences are also removed. Example, I can forgive my neighbor for killing my child, but the consequences remain.

Forgiveness removes the excuse barring the offer of reconciliation. Paul preached reconciliation as an ambassador.

Therefore, it is belief (which is limited by the purposed selection of God to graciously give such believe to those of His choosing) that is the limit, not the blood of the atonement.

Again, not to derail the thread, but to attempt in a single post to clarify.

So, can I rightly claim the title Calvinist? No.

Can I rightly be labeled a Calvinist? by some, by others according to this thread I am not.

I am known more in the assembly as "servant of the Lord" than by any other title.

 

[agedman]

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

Double "predestination" fails because (imo) it is a bit of difficult word definition problem.

I hold that prior to "in the beginning" (which is another topic) God selected individuals according to His pleasure and purpose to be redeemed. But did He actually predestine (select) the lost? Not in my thinking.

The lost were already lost (condemned already). He didn't have to appoint them as lost and He didn't have to assign them as lost. All He was obliged by His Love to do is to prepare a place for the lost for their eternal keeping.

Now, certainly, in the application of "double predestination" the results are the same, one spends eternity with the Father by His pleasure, or one is cast into eternity away from His presence.

It is the appointment itself. God did not determination to assign some to be outside His presence. That was not His determination. Rather such determination is already a done deal, folks are already in such a determination not by God but by their own nature. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. His love obliged a place for such to reside. They were not predestined to that place, but it was a place prepared for those of rebellion.

What then is predestined? Those God purposed for His reasons to eternal life in His presence.

 

[Reformed]

Double "predestination" fails because (imo) it is a bit of difficult word definition problem.

I hold that prior to "in the beginning" (which is another topic) God selected individuals according to His pleasure and purpose to be redeemed. But did He actually predestine (select) the lost? Not in my thinking.

The lost were already lost (condemned already). He didn't have to appoint them as lost and He didn't have to assign them as lost. All He was obliged by His Love to do is to prepare a place for the lost for their eternal keeping.

Now, certainly, in the application of "double predestination" the results are the same, one spends eternity with the Father by His pleasure, or one is cast into eternity away from His presence.

It is the appointment itself. God did not determination to assign some to be outside His presence. That was not His determination. Rather such determination is already a done deal, folks are already in such a determination not by God but by their own nature. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. His love obliged a place for such to reside. They were not predestined to that place, but it was a place prepared for those of rebellion.

What then is predestined? Those God purposed for His reasons to eternal life in His presence.

Your view (Infralapariarism) is very popular among Calvinists. I respect it but disagree with it. I see the scriptures indicating the Father actively choosing both the elect and the reprobate.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[agedman]

Your view (Infralapariarism) is very popular among Calvinists. I respect it but disagree with it. I see the scriptures indicating the Father actively choosing both the elect and the reprobate.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I understand and appreciate that view.

I have considered that part of mix in my decision as presented above was because one must also concern the matter of freedom of the will. In dealing with believers (even calvinistic thinking ones) once that matter is settled, then they will ascribe to double predetermined by election destiny as you do, or election to a single destiny with the rest untouched as I do. But, they will not remain non-calvinistic in their thinking.

I don't know what you have encountered in this matter (again not to change the topic of the thread). It seems that those who assume (even some Calvinistic thinking folks) that the unregenerate will of man is somehow part of the regeneration, do more often become confused when sorting out the double or single predetermined destiny.

Paul shared about the renewing of the mind, but it is a continual process prone to decline with age. Yet, the new Creation has no such renewing or declining.

I hold that because in redemption God does not in any aspect awaken or use anything of the old, but presents us as a completely new creation (even Paul remarking that it is yet to be revealed what we shall be) including new will, then it is not difficult to come to the place of the choosing being one directional. God presently imparts through the Holy Spirit aspects of the New Creation. That such as a new will, a new perspective, a new intellectual capacity, peace that passes understanding, Spirit gifts, ... all this that war against the forces of the old nature and enemies of Christ which the final victory is found as we pass from this residence to the eternal residence.

Doing so resolves issues relating to "double election" without disturbing that fact that folks are destined to eternity - an eternity with the Father, or the eternity outside His presence. That He didn't choose some for eternal loss and other eternal salvation. Rather, He chose to make a new Creation, and for the populace of that place He chose certain like aspects from the old (trees, buildings, rivers, animals...) to be duplicated including humans of His choosing and presenting them in the new creation as a new creation.

But I don't have difficulty fellowshipping with folks not persuaded into agreement.

 

[Rockson]

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.

I agree. It's like the Compatibilists are really trying to make their paradigm more acceptable with the public. Buyer needs to beware though! When you take the wraps off of what they say it's still the hard line position of the others and wise is the one who doesn't allow anyone to them them anything different.

 

[Reformed]

All these compliments about Calvinism from non-Calvinists just warms my heart. I love you too.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Hollow Man]

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'm fine with being called a Calvinist. I just don't call myself that, because I grew up hearing it in a different context and it just doesn't seem right on my ear.

My mother was a sociology professor and I grew up listening to her lectures about Calvinism (most were accurate) and I guess, because of that, I think of "Calvinism" as being a very small box that doesn't express my beliefs very well (although they are certainly consistent with Calvinism).

 

[Rob_BW]

I have no problem with the label, but if describing myself I would be more likely to use another term.

1. Paedobaptism, ecclesiology, & etc.

2. Nope

3. I like Monergist, and Particular Baptist has a nice ring to it.