A Tale of Two Calvinisms

[Yeshua1]

This is sooooo dishonest on your part, in no way is @JonC trying to "take out the Cross and Resurrection"....

Not saying that he is, just that those are the heart and very core of the NT!

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm not talking about taking out anything. I am talking about the fact that Jesus' gospel is the gospel of the Kingdom (that is what the Bible says He taught).

What did Nicodemus ask? What was Jesus' response? Jesus equated being "saved" with "entering" or "seeing" the Kingdom of God. This is in the Gospel of John. In the Gospel of Matthew we also read that Jesus proclaimed the gospel of the Kingdom.

In Mark we read Jesus proclaiming “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.” That is the gospel. The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand.

Jesus' words did not negate the cross (the cross had not even occurred when He proclaimed the gospel). But you do not have to deny the gospel in order to affirm the cross. Both are true and both are vital. But the gospel itself is not the cross (per Scripture). Men are not forgiven just for the sake of forgiveness. Men are not saved for the sake of being saved. Men are saved for a purpose (1 Peter 1) and this purpose is to do the works which have been preordained for them to do (kingdom work).

How much of the Kingdom is expressed though outside of the Gospel themselves?

 

[Yeshua1]

Ask David Taylor if He thinks Calvinist are believing the same as he does. There are so many different types of Calvinist I never know if I'm even speaking to one or not. There is 1,2,3,4, and 5 different types because of the tulip so many only believe one to Three doctrines of grace. None of them preach the gospel of Christ. They all claim election with out scriptural support. It's all Philosophical. Philosophy is not the gospel.Nor has it ever been truth
MB

real Calvinist must be holding to the 5 points of Grace, and if they also hold to some type of Confession and to all of CT , are Reformed!

 

[JonC]

How much of the Kingdom is expressed though outside of the Gospel themselves?

I never understood why people view the Gospels as inferior.

Christ tells us to first seek this Kingdom, yet so many discount it as secondary.

Anyway, very much of the Kingdom of God is expressed outside of the four Gospels. The Pauline epistles often focus on who will inherit this Kingdom and in Romans Paul expounds on the nature of this Kingdom. Isaiah focuses on this Kingdom. 2 Peter turns our attention to the kingdom.

 

[Iconoclast]

AustinC,

Jon, you are making massive brush strokes and assumptions. I can only assume you do this because you think your personal thoughts about God are superior and more well thought than others here.
Your proposition is therefore oozing with self-pride and daring people to prove your nebulous theory to be wrong. Good luck. It's clear you are stuck on your opinion.

Anyone can get overheated, make a regrettable post or two.
But we can sometimes see a distinct pattern emerge.
A person will "go back to the well" time and again.
You are thinking you have seen or detected a pattern

When this happens the person themselves cannot see what everyone else has little trouble discerning. Often if you study this you will see a person also projecting on others the self-same thing they do.

 

[JonC]

AustinC,



Anyone can get overheated, make a regrettable post or two.
But we can sometimes see a distinct pattern emerge.
A person will "go back to the well" time and again.
You are thinking you have seen or detected a pattern

When this happens the person themselves cannot see what everyone else has little trouble discerning. Often if you study this you will see a person also projecting on others the self-same thing they do.

This is my point.

There is a difference between a Christian yielding to the flesh and a person mastered by the flesh.

I use Calvinism partly because of its simplicity. But more than that, I was a Calvinist for a long time and I still affirm the 5 points.

Across forums some Calvinists are known as spiritually dead and ungodly people pretending to be Christian. But historically Calvinists have been known differently. Men like George Mueller are known for their love and utter dependence on God. Men like Charles Spurgeon had a heart for the lost. Contemporary examples abound as well (Tim Keller, John Piper, for example).

The issue is not doctrine but the heart. Spiritual matutity is the maturity of the spirit, not the acceptance of knowledge.

That is what I mean by two kinds of Calvinism. The reason is that the gospel, not Calvinism (or any other "ism"), is the power of God unto salvation. Christians know this. Calvinists use "Calvinism" as the gospel because it is their understanding. Same with Amyraldianism and Arminianism (fill in the blank).

But not all who say "Lord, Lord" are saved. Some worship knowledge and all they have is Calvinism (or any other theological view) apart from knowing Christ. To them doctrine means "spiritual truth". Calvinism tends to create a very ungodly spirit when applied to lost church people.

 

[church mouse guy]

If a person affirms the 5 points, is he a hyper-Calvinist? Just askin’ for a friend....

 

[JonC]

If a person affirms the 5 points, is he a hyper-Calvinist? Just askin’ for a friend....

Nah. The 5 points in Calvinism work together and build upon one another. Anything less than a 7 point Calvinist (Piper's two additional points) is an inconsistent Calvinist.

And you can confirm the conclusions without being a Calvinist (you can get there without Calvinistic philosophy).

I believe in the total depravity of men in that without the work of the Spirit men will not turn to God. And I think God saves men unconditionally (not based on any merit natural to that person). I believe Christ died to redeem mankind as a whole but also specifically to save those who would believe. And God's grace is ultimately irresistible (God's plan will happen and tge future will unfold as God knew it would prior to Creation). And those who are saved are saved from the wrath to come (salvation is not superficial). I believe those who do not believe are predestined to disbelief and those who believe are predestined to salvation because God is omniscient (if God is omniscient then everything is predestined to occur as God knew it would occur, and everything is decreed to occur by the act of Creation). And lastly I believe we are living in the best if all possible worlds because everything will ultimately work out to glorify God.

So I can still affirm the 5/ 7 points even though I am no longer a Calvinist. I ditched Calvinism because I did not see its philosophy biblical. BuI do believe that God is omniscient (so I have to accept everything is predestined) and I believe God created the world (so I have to believe everything is predestined by God). And based on an omniscient Creator predestination does not make God the source of sin.

 

[church mouse guy]

Nah. The 5 points in Calvinism work together and build upon one another. Anything less than a 7 point Calvinist (Piper's two additional points) is an inconsistent Calvinist.

And you can confirm the conclusions without being a Calvinist (you can get there without Calvinistic philosophy).

I believe in the total depravity of men in that without the work of the Spirit men will not turn to God. And I think God saves men unconditionally (not based on any merit natural to that person). I believe Christ died to redeem mankind as a whole but also specifically to save those who would believe. And God's grace is ultimately irresistible (God's plan will happen and tge future will unfold as God knew it would prior to Creation). And those who are saved are saved from the wrath to come (salvation is not superficial). I believe those who do not believe are predestined to disbelief and those who believe are predestined to salvation because God is omniscient (if God is omniscient then everything is predestined to occur as God knew it would occur, and everything is decreed to occur by the act of Creation). And lastly I believe we are living in the best if all possible worlds because everything will ultimately work out to glorify God.

So I can still affirm the 5/ 7 points even though I am no longer a Calvinist. I ditched Calvinism because I did not see its philosophy biblical. BuI do believe that God is omniscient (so I have to accept everything is predestined) and I believe God created the world (so I have to believe everything is predestined by God). And based on an omniscient Creator predestination does not make God the source of sin.

I don’t think God predestined everything but that He foreknew everything.

 

[JonC]

I don’t think God predestined everything but that He foreknew everything.

I do not understand how you can believe that God foreknew everything, Created everything, but the future is not predestined to unfold as God knew and created it to unfold. Perhaps it is just perception, or more likely that I'm just not the sharpest tool in the box.

Do you believe that God knew, before God created the world, the outcome of contingent events (like who would and would not believe, for example)? If not, then perhaps that is where I am not following (many believe God knew all that is to be known, but our decisions are unknown prior to us making them).

There is also the possibility that we believe the same thing (on this point) but are speaking about this differently. I just want to make sure we are not talking past one another.

 

[kyredneck]

There are so many different types of Calvinist I never know if I'm even speaking to one or not. There is 1,2,3,4, and 5 different types

...doesn't even come close to the confusion that exists within Dispensationalism.

You just can't understand it.
MB

Don't want to, too many extrabiblical charts and books required to decipher between, classical, modified, progressive, hyper, ultra-hyper, MacArthur's, and who knows how many other 'schools' of dispensationalism there are.

 

[Mikey]

I have noticed across boards and books that there are two kinds of Calvinism reflective of the two kinds of people that adhere to them. The doctrine is identical, but the people are completely different. We could say that there are simply two kinds of Calvinists, but based on arguments I think it is better put that the way Calvinism is held creates two different kinds of Calvinism as the arguments against Calvinism are often misdirected.

One is the idea that Calvinism best explains God’s work of Redemption from the standpoint of God’s sovereignty and the moral state of human beings. The other is that Calvinism is itself the gospel of Jesus Christ.

One is a theology, the other a philosophy that seeks to know God apart from Christ (a “backdoor Christianity).

While I believe the first is wrong, it is not a departure from the gospel but an explanation of the gospel. While I also believe the second is wrong, it is wrong on a more significant level as it is another gospel and is in opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The first recognizes that other Christians are no less brothers in Christ, no less mature in the Spirit, no less a partaker of the heavenly gifts and the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. The second considers those who believe differently to be brethren, but less spiritual, less enlightened, less mature.

The first discerns that these theological positions are to those who hold them the gospel, for it is their understanding of the gospel, and they interact with fellow believers in respect and love. The second replaces the gospel with their understanding of the gospel and argues that others adopt their view.

The first is secondary to Christ in the lives of the believer. The second replaces Christ in the lives of a believer.

The first sheds understanding on a living faith. The second is a dead religion.

The first is an explanation, the second is a false gospel.

I agree with the general aspect of your post. There are certainly calvinists who equate calvinism with the Gospel, which i absoutley disagree with. The issue is if calvinism is the gospel, then any other position would have to be viewed as a false gospel. Thus those who aren't calvinists are not saved as no one can be saved by a false gospel.

I believe that calvinism is the correct understanding of what Scripture teaches, thus other positions would be in error. Error not Heresy, which another/ false Gospel would be, thus we can disagree on this doctrine but remain brothers in Christ.

 

[JonC]

I agree with the general aspect of your post. There are certainly calvinists who equate calvinism with the Gospel, which i absoutley disagree with. The issue is if calvinism is the gospel, then any other position would have to be viewed as a false gospel. Thus those who aren't calvinists are not saved as no one can be saved by a false gospel.

I believe that calvinism is the correct understanding of what Scripture teaches, thus other positions would be in error. Error not Heresy, which another/ false Gospel would be, thus we can disagree on this doctrine but remain brothers in Christ.

Very well put. We can hold different understandings and interact with one another in Christ because we are able to realize the difference between our understanding (which we believe correct) and the gospel (or Scripture) from which our understanding is derived.

I believe that Romans 14:4 applies. We are not accountable to one another but to Christ. This is expressed at the local church level as well (but we are not a church). So we are not to judge another person even as we can strongly argue for our understanding. There should always be a line that we do not cross, and when we become unable to tell the difference between the gospel and our understanding of the gospel we have crossed that line.

 

[JonC]

Don't want to, too many extrabiblical charts and books required to decipher between, classical, modified, progressive, hyper, ultra-hyper, MacArthur's, and who knows how many other 'schools' of dispensationalism there are.

I'm working on a secret decoder ring for this. If you want, when I'm finished, I'll send you one....for three easy installments of $29.95.

 

[kyredneck]

I'll send you one....for three easy installments of $29.95.

...you'd make a good profit as a dispy prophet selling the dispensational sensationalism....you've the 'mind' for it...

 

[Yeshua1]

I never understood why people view the Gospels as inferior.

Christ tells us to first seek this Kingdom, yet so many discount it as secondary.

Anyway, very much of the Kingdom of God is expressed outside of the four Gospels. The Pauline epistles often focus on who will inherit this Kingdom and in Romans Paul expounds on the nature of this Kingdom. Isaiah focuses on this Kingdom. 2 Peter turns our attention to the kingdom.

Much more emphasis is made though upon the death and resurrection of Lord Jesus!

 

[Yeshua1]

This is my point.

There is a difference between a Christian yielding to the flesh and a person mastered by the flesh.

I use Calvinism partly because of its simplicity. But more than that, I was a Calvinist for a long time and I still affirm the 5 points.

Across forums some Calvinists are known as spiritually dead and ungodly people pretending to be Christian. But historically Calvinists have been known differently. Men like George Mueller are known for their love and utter dependence on God. Men like Charles Spurgeon had a heart for the lost. Contemporary examples abound as well (Tim Keller, John Piper, for example).

The issue is not doctrine but the heart. Spiritual matutity is the maturity of the spirit, not the acceptance of knowledge.

That is what I mean by two kinds of Calvinism. The reason is that the gospel, not Calvinism (or any other "ism"), is the power of God unto salvation. Christians know this. Calvinists use "Calvinism" as the gospel because it is their understanding. Same with Amyraldianism and Arminianism (fill in the blank).

But not all who say "Lord, Lord" are saved. Some worship knowledge and all they have is Calvinism (or any other theological view) apart from knowing Christ. To them doctrine means "spiritual truth". Calvinism tends to create a very ungodly spirit when applied to lost church people.

Please give an example of your point that " Calvinism tends to create a very ungodly spirit when applied to lost church people."

 

[JonC]

Much more emphasis is made though upon the death and resurrection of Lord Jesus!

No, actually more emphasis is made over the Kingdom. This is the theme throughout the Old Testament and into the New. It is the them throughout all four Gospels and most of Jesus' parables. And it is the theme throughout most of the epistles (especially Romans and the letters to the church in Corinth).

You are wrong on this point, brother, and may want to look at the number of times the kingdom is mentioned in Scripture. The kingdom has always been the gospel and the Cross the place of reconciliation.

 

[Yeshua1]

If a person affirms the 5 points, is he a hyper-Calvinist? Just askin’ for a friend....

No, as that would be what "regular" calvinists affirm!

 

[Yeshua1]

Nah. The 5 points in Calvinism work together and build upon one another. Anything less than a 7 point Calvinist (Piper's two additional points) is an inconsistent Calvinist.

And you can confirm the conclusions without being a Calvinist (you can get there without Calvinistic philosophy).

I believe in the total depravity of men in that without the work of the Spirit men will not turn to God. And I think God saves men unconditionally (not based on any merit natural to that person). I believe Christ died to redeem mankind as a whole but also specifically to save those who would believe. And God's grace is ultimately irresistible (God's plan will happen and tge future will unfold as God knew it would prior to Creation). And those who are saved are saved from the wrath to come (salvation is not superficial). I believe those who do not believe are predestined to disbelief and those who believe are predestined to salvation because God is omniscient (if God is omniscient then everything is predestined to occur as God knew it would occur, and everything is decreed to occur by the act of Creation). And lastly I believe we are living in the best if all possible worlds because everything will ultimately work out to glorify God.

So I can still affirm the 5/ 7 points even though I am no longer a Calvinist. I ditched Calvinism because I did not see its philosophy biblical. BuI do believe that God is omniscient (so I have to accept everything is predestined) and I believe God created the world (so I have to believe everything is predestined by God). And based on an omniscient Creator predestination does not make God the source of sin.

Did God cause the fall then in your understanding?