ANY other Dispy cals that post here on the Baptist Board?

[Jacob_Elliott]

Absolutely!

In fact, I don't know very many "calvinists" who have actually read the "institutes."

They (like myself) arrived at a certain level of understanding what the Scriptures hold as true and accepted it only to find out later that there was a person who had similar thinking called Calvin.

I posted earlier, had I been peer with Calvin, he and I wouldn't have gotten along - too many differences.

But then, at my age, I have a hard time getting along with myself - always in rebellion and have to be killed daily.

Assumptions assumptions

 

[Tom Butler]

If you actually knew Calvin's personal theology, you likely would not call yourself a Calvinist.

Your point is well taken. Because of the overall differences, I don't really want to be called a Calvinist. But it is a kind of shorthand which reflects Calvin's views on the Doctrines of Grace.

That's why I lightheartedly refer to myself on this board as a DoG.

It's a quick way to say that I hold to the Doctrines of Grace, but not eveything Calvin believed and taught.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Your point is well taken. Because of the overall differences, I don't really want to be called a Calvinist. But it is a kind of shorthand which reflects Calvin's views on the Doctrines of Grace.

That's why I lightheartedly refer to myself on this board as a DoG.

It's a quick way to say that I hold to the Doctrines of Grace, but not eveything Calvin believed and taught.

Here's a thought.

Let's just all call ourselves Christians.

 

[Tom Butler]

Here's a thought.

Let's just all call ourselves Christians.

Oh, I do. And that would be just fine if we were all on the same page.

But frankly, some people who call themselves Christians hold to a different belief about salvation from my view.

That's why it didn't take long for Paul to part company with the Judaizers in the first century.

It's a nice thought, but sadly, not workable these days.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Oh, I do. And that would be just fine if we were all on the same page.

But frankly, some people who call themselves Christians hold to a different belief about salvation from my view.

That's why it didn't take long for Paul to part company with the Judaizers in the first century.

It's a nice thought, but sadly, not workable these days.

I agree, but I'll let their words and actions speak for their heart, not what they call themselves. I know where my heart is, I'm pretty sure I know where yours is, and those of several other BB members.

Until someone shows me they don't share the essential view of salvation taught in the Bible, I'll take their word for it that, upon saying "I"m a Christian," they know what that means.

 

[preachinjesus]

We've got to always remember that the writings of Calvin are somewhat less than inspired, inerrant and infallible!!!:type::type:

Of course he isn't and no one around here is saying that he is...though some Calvinists I've met...

What I am saying is that if you're going to call yourself a Calvinist you probably better have a theology that matches what the originator of that category held.

You cannot be a Calvinist and be a "Four Pointer."
You cannot be a Calvinist and not believe in predestination.
You cannot be a Calvinist and not hold to infant baptism.
You cannot be a Calvinist and believe in the Catholic sacraments.

Calvin has presented his theology exhaustively. Frankly, I don't understand Calvinists who are staunchly so and haven't read Calvin...at all. If you're going to call yourself a Calvinist, at least hold to what he believed.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

You cannot be a Calvinist and be a "Four Pointer."
You cannot be a Calvinist and not believe in predestination.
You cannot be a Calvinist and not hold to infant baptism.
You cannot be a Calvinist and believe in the Catholic sacraments.

Essentially, what you have just said is that Calvin himself wasn't a Calvinist. He held to the last two of your four "cannots." How can Calvin not be a Calvinist? More rightly, he is the Calvinist and the rest of you are just ... something else.

And what do you say to those who call themselves "three-and-a-half" or "four-point" Calvinists? They aren't Calvinists, I can see, but what would you call them (keeping in mind this is a family board)? :laugh:

 

[preachinjesus]

Essentially, what you have just said is that Calvin himself wasn't a Calvinist. He held to the last two of your four "cannots." How can Calvin not be a Calvinist? More rightly, he is the Calvinist and the rest of you are just ... something else.

What are you talking about? Calvin believed in and robustly articulated all five points (which were in turn noted by Jacob Arminius at Dort) as the core of his theology. He rejected any theology that didn't match up. Surely you've seen him articulate this in your reading of his works.

And what do you say to those who call themselves "three-and-a-half" or "four-point" Calvinists? They aren't Calvinists, I can see, but what would you call them (keeping in mind this is a family board)? :laugh:

Reformed.

 

[Tom Butler]

Of course he isn't and no one around here is saying that he is...though some Calvinists I've met...

What I am saying is that if you're going to call yourself a Calvinist you probably better have a theology that matches what the originator of that category held.

You cannot be a Calvinist and be a "Four Pointer."
You cannot be a Calvinist and not believe in predestination.
You cannot be a Calvinist and not hold to infant baptism.
You cannot be a Calvinist and believe in the Catholic sacraments.

Calvin has presented his theology exhaustively. Frankly, I don't understand Calvinists who are staunchly so and haven't read Calvin...at all. If you're going to call yourself a Calvinist, at least hold to what he believed.

In strict terms, you are probably right. But among Baptists, no. I know of no Baptist who embraces everything Calvin believed. They hold a very narrow definition, confined to his view of the doctrines of grace.

When a Baptist describes himself as a Calvinist, I understand what he's saying.

 

[preachinjesus]

When a Baptist describes himself as a Calvinist, I understand what he's saying.

Agreed.

Just like the OP, who cannot grasp nuance, who claims to be a dispensational Calvinist. This is an absolute contradiction.

But I understand the insanity. :thumbsup:

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

What are you talking about? Calvin believed in and robustly articulated all five points (which were in turn noted by Jacob Arminius at Dort) as the core of his theology. He rejected any theology that didn't match up. Surely you've seen him articulate this in your reading of his works.

Try reading the post again.

Great googly moogly!

 

[preachinjesus]

Try reading the post again.

Great googly moogly!

I read the post accurately. You're incorrect about the four points cited. Calvin held the positions which I laid out.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I read the post accurately. You're incorrect about the four points cited. Calvin held the positions which I laid out.

You're claiming that he did not endorse infant baptism, the sacraments of the Catholic Church, and one you didn't mention -- baptismal regeneration?

Do I have that right?

 

[preachinjesus]

You're claiming that he did not endorse infant baptism, the sacraments of the Catholic Church, and one you didn't mention -- baptismal regeneration?

Do I have that right?

No. Go and re-read my points. I didn't point out baptismal regeneration because I didn't need to.

Calvin held to infant baptism.
Calvin preached against the Catholic sacraments.
Calvin taught predestination (well double predestination.)
For Calvin, as summed up by Arminius, the five points are central to his theology.

You'll note my points are made that one cannot be a Calvinist and hold something contrary to what John Calvin held.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Calvin held to infant baptism.

Yes, he did.

Calvin preached against the Catholic sacraments.

No, he did not.

Calvin taught predestination (well double predestination.)

That's not at issue between us.

For Calvin, as summed up by Arminius, the five points are central to his theology.

I said "your four points," ...

You cannot be a Calvinist and be a "Four Pointer."
You cannot be a Calvinist and not believe in predestination.
You cannot be a Calvinist and not hold to infant baptism.
You cannot be a Calvinist and believe in the Catholic sacraments.

... not Calvin's five points.

 

[preachinjesus]

... not Calvin's five points.

I think we might be talking past each other here.

My point about the "Four Points" was that too many Baptists I know claim to be "Four Point Calvinists" and that is logically incoherent...imho.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I think we might be talking past each other here.

My point about the "Four Points" was that too many Baptists I know claim to be "Four Point Calvinists" and that is logically incoherent...imho.

I was talking about your claims that "you cannot be a Calvinist if ... " which you stated four times (your "four points") in that post, to which I said "Calvin believed in the last two of your (those) four points." Clear now? :thumbsup: :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Yeshua1]

No. Go and re-read my points. I didn't point out baptismal regeneration because I didn't need to.

Calvin held to infant baptism.
Calvin preached against the Catholic sacraments.
Calvin taught predestination (well double predestination.)
For Calvin, as summed up by Arminius, the five points are central to his theology.

You'll note my points are made that one cannot be a Calvinist and hold something contrary to what John Calvin held.

think the main point here is that one can be either reformed, holding to calvinism proper, entire covenant theology system, or reformed, holding to its Sotierology on the whole... Think many baptists are reformed in that regard!

 

[preachinjesus]

I was talking about your claims that "you cannot be a Calvinist if ... " which you stated four times (your "four points") in that post, to which I said "Calvin believed in the last two of your (those) four points." Clear now? :thumbsup: :smilewinkgrin:

Yes, we've misunderstood each other. My four points wasn't relating to anything in that list. Apologies.

 

[preachinjesus]

think the main point here is that one can be either reformed, holding to calvinism proper, entire covenant theology system, or reformed, holding to its Sotierology on the whole... Think many baptists are reformed in that regard!

There is a difference between being Reformed and being a Calvinist.