are there different kinds of calvinists?

[Rippon]

I think one result of believing that God has created most people to be "without a prayer" for salvation does give the "elect" a great degree of pride -- "vain in their imaginations" I think the Bible says -- definitely believing themselves to be wiser that the rest of us.

skypair

Can't you think of a new lie SP? How many times must you keep saying blatantly false things? I must have told you dozens of times that any true believer of Christ is elect -- whether Calvinist, or not.
Hey, I have a suggestion for you ( aside from listening to old Rogers sermons) tell the truth once in a while about Calvinists. How bout' that?

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Turns out Arminius was a 3 point calvinist his points of conflict were I believe free will and election. Anyhow much of calvinism is biblical and most folks are calvinists of one type or another.
Most folks who call themselves calvinists are referring to the tulip acrostic and not to the Institutes of Religion written by Calvin. So they are not actually calvinists at all but tulips.:laugh:

 

[drfuss]

drfuss: I have gone over all the posts and have not seen the following resentments about Calvinists. Calvinists use terms that imply a misrepresentation of what others believe. For example:

Doctrines of Grace - All Christians believe in the doctrine of grace. By calling Calvinism "The Doctrines of Grace", the Calvinists imply a misrepresentation of what others believe, by suggesting that others don't believe in God's grace. This arrogance on the part of Calvinists is naturally resented and shows a lack of consideration for other Christians.

Sovereignty of God - All Christians believe that God is completely sovereign. Yet, many Calvinists say that Calvinists believe God is more sovereign than what Non-Calvinists believe. Again, Calvinists misrepresent what others believe.

Faith - Some Calvinists indicate that accepting Christ as Savior is an act of man's work. They continue that anyone who believes accepting Christ as Savior is necessary for salvation, is depending on man's work for salvation. Again a gross misrepresentation of what Non-Calvinists believe.

Etc.

Is it any wonder that others consider Calvinists arrogant, aggressive and inconsiderate?

 

[Bob Farnaby]

Turns out Arminius was a 3 point calvinist his points of conflict were I believe free will and election. Anyhow much of calvinism is biblical and most folks are calvinists of one type or another.
Most folks who call themselves calvinists are referring to the tulip acrostic and not to the Institutes of Religion written by Calvin. So they are not actually calvinists at all but tulips.:laugh:

So does that make them the flower of christianity?....

I agree Bill, personally I feel a great hesitancy to call myself a Calvanist, not because i have any problems with the 'five points' stuff, but because of the issues of baptism, church government, church/state relationships. With these three i find myself way different to Calvin. Shows the importance of going back to the scripture and seeking to see and understand what it says.

Regards
Bob

 

[Rippon]

Turns out Arminius was a 3 point calvinist his points of conflict were I believe free will and election. Anyhow much of calvinism is biblical and most folks are calvinists of one type or another.
Most folks who call themselves calvinists are referring to the tulip acrostic and not to the Institutes of Religion written by Calvin. So they are not actually calvinists at all but tulips.:laugh:

No, go wider POB. A Calvinist is more comprehensive in their theology than just the 5 responses to Arminian error.

 

[Rippon]

So does that make them the flower of christianity?....

I agree Bill, personally I feel a great hesitancy to call myself a Calvanist, not because i have any problems with the 'five points' stuff, but because of the issues of baptism, church government, church/state relationships. With these three i find myself way different to Calvin. Shows the importance of going back to the scripture and seeking to see and understand what it says.

Regards
Bob

For the 1,000th time. Being a Calvinist does not mean following John Calvin.Aren't you the least bit familiar with Church History? Spurgeon,Boyce,Dagg,Carey,Gill, Keach and scores more of just preachers/authors were Calvinists though Baptists as well. There need not be any contradiction.

 

[LeBuick]

Nope, they are all the same. None of them will listen and they think they know everything... :BangHead: :BangHead:

 

[Rippon]

Doctrines of Grace - All Christians believe in the doctrine of grace. By calling Calvinism "The Doctrines of Grace", the Calvinists imply a misrepresentation of what others believe, by suggesting that others don't believe in God's grace. This arrogance on the part of Calvinists is naturally resented and shows a lack of consideration for other Christians.

Rippon: This has been dealt with a lot before. The term "Doctrines of Grace" has been with us for centuries. It has been another momenclature for Calvinists -- those who hold to the doctrine(s) of grace. There are 10's of thousands of websites which use the term referring to Calvinists. You've got your work cut out for you if you want to stop the usage of the term.
And specifically the Doctrines of Grace have an approach to Scripture with which non-Cals would object.You, as a non-Cal maintain you believe in grace, but the way you define it is distinctly different than the way a Calvinist understands it.

Sovereignty of God - All Christians believe that God is completely sovereign. Yet, many Calvinists say that Calvinists believe God is more sovereign than what Non-Calvinists believe. Again, Calvinists misrepresent what others believe.

Rip: No, many non-Cals give the sovereignty of God lip-service only. They sometimes even outline what they consider the areas of his sovereignty, and where He does not exercise His sovereignty. They even maintain "man's sovereignty"!!So, on the issue of God's sovereignty many Christians do deny openly are by implication His full sovereignty. How many would agree with the perspective of AWP's book "The Sovereignty of God" for instance?"Aw, Pink goes too far", many non-Cals say.In other words God is not THAT sovereign?

Faith - Some Calvinists indicate that accepting Christ as Savior is an act of man's work. They continue that anyone who believes accepting Christ as Savior is necessary for salvation, is depending on man's work for salvation. Again a gross misrepresentation of what Non-Calvinists believe.

Rip: I don't have the time to address this point now. I have to get ready for church in my corner of the world.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

2 good books to read, "Why I am not a Calvinist" and"why I am not an Arminian". This could round out our thinking a little.

 

[drfuss]

drfuss: From the OP:

"I have had very little experience with calvinists. The calvinists I have known in real life (very few) were extremely bombastic, argumentative, domineering, fundamentalistic, holier than thou, and very very unloving. All pointed to knowing they were saved by their good works, rather than by their faith.

From that I assumed their attitudes, beliefs, and actions were reflective of calvinism itself."


drfuss: Doctrines of Grace - All Christians believe in the doctrine of grace. By calling Calvinism "The Doctrines of Grace", the Calvinists imply a misrepresentation of what others believe, by suggesting that others don't believe in God's grace. This arrogance on the part of Calvinists is naturally resented and shows a lack of consideration for other Christians.

Rippon: This has been dealt with a lot before. The term "Doctrines of Grace" has been with us for centuries. It has been another momenclature for Calvinists -- those who hold to the doctrine(s) of grace. There are 10's of thousands of websites which use the term referring to Calvinists. You've got your work cut out for you if you want to stop the usage of the term.
And specifically the Doctrines of Grace have an approach to Scripture with which non-Cals would object.You, as a non-Cal maintain you believe in grace, but the way you define it is distinctly different than the way a Calvinist understands it.


drfuss: Sovereignty of God - All Christians believe that God is completely sovereign. Yet, many Calvinists say that Calvinists believe God is more sovereign than what Non-Calvinists believe. Again, Calvinists misrepresent what others believe.

Rip: No, many non-Cals give the sovereignty of God lip-service only. They sometimes even outline what they consider the areas of his sovereignty, and where He does not exercise His sovereignty. They even maintain "man's sovereignty"!!So, on the issue of God's sovereignty many Christians do deny openly are by implication His full sovereignty. How many would agree with the perspective of AWP's book "The Sovereignty of God" for instance?"Aw, Pink goes too far", many non-Cals say.In other words God is not THAT sovereign?


drfuss: The OP indicated attitude problems with Calvinists and questioned if their atitudes were reflective of Calvinism itself. You just showed that the bad misrepresentations by Calvinists are reflective of Calvinism itself, and it has been that way for years.

I was not trying to be difficult, just answering the OP's question about the nature of Calvinism. Thanks for demonstrating my answer so well.

I realize that the Calvinists will not change their misleading terms: it seems to have been that way from the beginning. I suspect that most Calvinists don't realize how they come across when using these standardized misleading terms.

Peace.

 

[LeBuick]

2 good books to read, "Why I am not a Calvinist" and"why I am not an Arminian". This could round out our thinking a little.

AMEN to that... Perhaps you can toss in a free copy of, "Why I Proclaim Solely to be Christian"...

 

[pinoybaptist]

This ongoing problem between Calvinists and Non-Cals are fleshly. You guys are "in the flesh" yet. Both of you are carnal. Corinthians. And even worse, you try to portray one another as either inferior or arrogant.

On a lighter note, you remind me of a joke circulating among Filipinos back when the Muslim insurgency was at its strongest and body bags were being brought home by the gross every day on both sides.

A reporter asked a Muslim fighter when peace could finally be restored. The fighter replied "when the army surrenders".

 

[pinoybaptist]

double post.

 

[skypair]

Where does this idea of "most" people not being saved come from, Skypair? I have never seen or heard a calvinist claiming to know the ratio of saved to unsaved. Have you?

Well, I don't see Cavlinists claiming that Muslims, Bhuddists, atheists, etc. are saved so I'm betting you would agree that "most" are not saved, right?

The fact that I do not agree with you on this matter does not mean that I consider myself wiser than you. (I don't). Obviously I think calvinistic doctrines are right, or I would not believe them, just as I am sure you believe as you do because you judge it to be right. Surely neither of us is claiming to be wiser than the other?

Mostly Calvinists will 1) claim to be edu-ma-cated in the deeper things of the Bible, not by studying or knowing them, but by understanding Calvinism. If they just tried to be better "steards of the mysteries of God" and not Calvinism, they'd be better off.

2) Then, on top of that, they constantly claim that others don't understand Calvinism, "doctrines of Grace," etc. (less edu-ma-cated :laugh is why they don't know the Bible and God. Well, I understand the "Wonderful One Hoss Shea" and I understand the Bible --- and there's not many points of convergence.

There is IMO a sore need for Calvinists 1) to understand the triunity of the nature of man (Body, soul, spirit) especially as it applies to sotierology but also to sanctification; 2) to understand the parables and mysteries of God; 3) to understand dispensationalism, the covenants of God, and eschatology rightly dividing the word

One place where Calvinism has it PATENTLY wrong is in sotierology where they deem the OT saints to have been saved by being "regenerated" as well!.

To me, they carry on totally oblivious to some of the most important issues in scripture! It's almost like filling up your "college schedule" (life here on earth) with ELECTIVES and avoiding the core courses they need to make an "eternal career!" I mean, in my view, Calvinism is basically "cocktail" information whose main thrust is "Why bother? We can't do anything to effect God's sovereign 'program' anyway. Que sera, sera."

skypair

 

[skypair]

So I guess I answered my own question. Apparently there ARE different kinds of calvinists. Now to research and find out if there are different kinds of calvinism.

As with anything, there is academic, theoretical Calvinism and practical Calvinism. Example: Academic Calvinism says that we are elect from eternity past but practical Calvinism admits there is no way to know one is "elect" until one is saved.

As you can tell by this simple example, there is a HUGE disconnect between theoretical Calvinism and real life Calvinism. In fact, in real life there is almost no practical use for theoretical Calvinism unless you are trying to make the church the political "state."


skypair

 

[skypair]

For the 1,000th time. Being a Calvinist does not mean following John Calvin. Aren't you the least bit familiar with Church History? Spurgeon, Boyce, Dagg, Carey,Gill, Keach and scores more of just preachers/authors were Calvinists though Baptists as well [Most of whom called themselves "Calvinists," BTW! :laugh:]. T here need not be any contradiction.

It's called "CalvinISM" for a reason, rip. And it's no more deceitful than Paul saying that "some say they are followers of Cephas, some of Apollos, some of Christ." If Paul had his way, none of those "spinoffs" of Christianity would be "denominated. "

But Paul apparently isn't going to get his way when it comes to Calvinists, is he? They're clearly very proud of how they have divided the church in that they keep that title "out there" for all to see.

I sincerely enjoy discussing our different perspectives of each individual issue. We all have our strengths and weaknesses in our "knowledge and faith of the Son of God." (Eph 4:13) But at some point I believe we all have to abandon "pet theories" of we'll never in this life "come to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ."

skypair

 

[skypair]

This ongoing problem between Calvinists and Non-Cals are fleshly. You guys are "in the flesh" yet. Both of you are carnal. Corinthians. And even worse, you try to portray one another as either inferior or arrogant.

You mean as in "let me cast the mote out of YOUR eye for YOU?" :laugh:

I believe one angle that we have not addressed that may bring "closure" is the fact that God in 3 Persons operates differently than any of us have considered when giving our views of "God's this" and "God's that."

I'll sketch out a thread and see what develops. :godisgood:

skypair

 

[David Lamb]

Well, I don't see Cavlinists claiming that Muslims, Bhuddists, atheists, etc. are saved so I'm betting you would agree that "most" are not saved, right?

I don't follow you. Are you saying that non-calvinists do believe that Muslims, Bhuddists, atheists, etc. are saved? If not, and if that must mean there are more people unsaved than saved, then there is no difference on this point between calvinists and non-calvinists.

Mostly Calvinists will 1) claim to be edu-ma-cated in the deeper things of the Bible, not by studying or knowing them, but by understanding Calvinism. If they just tried to be better "steards of the mysteries of God" and not Calvinism, they'd be better off.

That "claim" is clearly your view, but I have yet to see any difference on the BB. There are some on both "sides" who come across as seeming to claim to know better than others.

2) Then, on top of that, they constantly claim that others don't understand Calvinism, "doctrines of Grace," etc. (less edu-ma-cated :laugh is why they don't know the Bible and God. Well, I understand the "Wonderful One Hoss Shea" and I understand the Bible --- and there's not many points of convergence.

I cannot speak for others, but as far as I am concerned, I only say that someone does not understand "Calvinism, "doctrines of Grace," etc." if that person makes statements about it that are wrong, just as you would if I misrepresented your beliefs. If my posts have ever come across in such an arrogant way, please forgive me. By the way, who is "Hoss Shea"? I'm assuming it is a way of writing the name "Jesus", but a Google search for the term brought up just 2 sites, one referring to "The wonderful many-hoss Shea", and the other to "Shea Roebuck (Hoss)Shea Roebuck, a Hampton Roads native, is excited to make his acting debut with the Virginia Stage Company."

There is IMO a sore need for Calvinists 1) to understand the triunity of the nature of man (Body, soul, spirit) especially as it applies to sotierology but also to sanctification; 2) to understand the parables and mysteries of God; 3) to understand dispensationalism, the covenants of God, and eschatology rightly dividing the word

Why calvinists? Granted, there are probably more calvinists than non calvinists who believe in the dichotomy of man than the trichotomy, or triunity, but what about understanding the parables and mysteries of God, and eschatology? There is (as I think I have said before) a variety of belief among non-calvinists on these things, too. By no means all non-calvinists are dispensationalists, for instance.

One place where Calvinism has it PATENTLY wrong is in sotierology where they deem the OT saints to have been saved by being "regenerated" as well!.

To me, they carry on totally oblivious to some of the most important issues in scripture! It's almost like filling up your "college schedule" (life here on earth) with ELECTIVES and avoiding the core courses they need to make an "eternal career!" I mean, in my view, Calvinism is basically "cocktail" information whose main thrust is "Why bother? We can't do anything to effect God's sovereign 'program' anyway. Que sera, sera."
skypair

You seem to have that wrong as far as all the many calvinists I have met are concerned, but I am at a loss to know how to put your false impression right - I have tried, many times, to tell you that we don't believe all the things you say we do. I am just glad, immensly glad, that (whatever our differences) we both know the Lord Jesus Christ as our Saviour, and trust in His completed work on Calvary, praise His wonderful name!

 

[skypair]

That "claim" is clearly your view, but I have yet to see any difference on the BB. There are some on both "sides" who come across as seeming to claim to know better than others.

Yes, so it seems. But it does not seem as if my Calvinist counterparts are pursuing "knowledge and faith" of the same God.

You know what an "affectation" is, don't you, David? Though all of these that I debate with are saved, the addition of Calvinism to their "knowledge and faith" seems to have seems to be an extrabiblical affectation. I'm not sure it helps us get to the measure of the stature of Christ.

I cannot speak for others, but as far as I am concerned, I only say that someone does not understand "Calvinism, "doctrines of Grace," etc." if that person makes statements about it that are wrong, just as you would if I misrepresented your beliefs.

The heart of the matter for me is that Calvinism can't answer the question that is plain as the nose on your face about Christianity -- "How does God chose whom He does to salvation?" And if we can't know that as even RC Sproul admits Calvies can't and Calvin says we ought not look into, then how can we ever have assurance of salvation?

BELIEVERS on Christ are the ones chosen and saved, David. But Calvies will insist that its the "elect from before the foundation..." who are saved and, if that is so, we can never be sure this side of heaven if we are a "chosen one" nor can we, according to Calvinism, DO anything about it. In fact, I've had 'em tell me you can believe all you want but it is false belief unless you are truly "elect" and can, thus, understand spiritual things (and hopefully those "spiritual things" truly are spiritual things and not just Calvinism posing as such. Do you see how the "mouse" is being drawn through the "maze" to the "cheese" of salvation according to Calvinism? And yet Calvinism claims not to really know how God chooses in the first place?).

Another issue that Sproul admits nobody including Calvies can explain is how sin entered into the world. But the only reason he can't "find" the answer is because he omits free will and human sovereignty from consideration. Basically, he says that if it happened, God willed it; and if God willed it, then it was He Who decreed it; and if God predestined and decreed it, Adam had no other choice. The correct choice, BTW, is free will and foreknowledge, neither of which will Sproul accept a rational, biblical definition of.

If my posts have ever come across in such an arrogant way, please forgive me.

Never you, David. I sometimes wonder if you are on Valium or Riddelin (just kidding - :laugh! You give thoughtful consideration to others and never "act the child" by saying "You just don't understand me." Our parents understood a lot more than we give them credit for and that seems to be the relationship here between me and some of my detractors.

By the way, who is "Hoss Shea"? I'm assuming it is a way of writing the name "Jesus",

I may have spelled it wrong. It's "shay" meaning "carriage." And the title is an old poem by one of our Supreme Court Justices, Oliver Wendell Holmes. It is said to be a parody on Calvinism.

Granted, there are probably more calvinists than non calvinists who believe in the dichotomy of man than the trichotomy, or triunity,...

And this "sets us back" in our growth in the knowledge and faith of Christ. The first "roadblock" we come to is the Calvinist idea that we are "spiritually dead" when, in fact, our soul IS what died but our spirit is very much alive and free.

...but what about understanding the parables and mysteries of God, and eschatology?

Again, "sets us back." One of the HUGE truths Christ is trying to reveal in Matthew's kingdom of heaven parables is 1) dispensationalism and 2) the distinction between God's plan for Israel and God's plan for the church!

How does God save people both in this life and in the world to come? By revealing Himself, His ways, and His paths.

There is (as I think I have said before) a variety of belief among non-calvinists on these things, too. By no means all non-calvinists are dispensationalists, for instance.

We're trying to get around to that but there's no "fire" around here for these truths. And why? IMO, A) people around here are more interested in the truths about Calvinism and the WCF and the doctrines of grace whereby they got "dragged" to Christ and B) they won't consider truths that would contradict their Calvinist paradigm of the way things are (such as the distinction between Israel and the church).

You seem to have that wrong as far as all the many calvinists I have met are concerned, but I am at a loss to know how to put your false impression right...

Here would be a start -- don't call yourself a Calvinist. Next, discuss the issues -- sovereignty of God, triunity of the nature of man, sotierology, etc. -- according to the paradigm that the Bible gives us.

I have tried, many times, to tell you that we don't believe all the things you say we do.

And I have tried to "fit" what you say into the rest of what I consider to be a biblical paradigm to show you how what you believe just doesn't fit. When I try to fit Calvinism into biblical terms and concepts, it seems to me quite obvious that you couldn't believe what you do if it had to fit into what the Bible says. Then there is also the further problem I have tried to raise -- that Calvies don't always practice what they preach, their own personal testimonies of salvation demonstrating that they don't have a Calvinist salvation but a Christian one -- "belief preceded regeneration" to be precise. Paul once wrote the church that they had to get back and remember how they came unto Christ themselves. Well, Calvies need the same, IMO.

I am just glad, immensly glad, that (whatever our differences) we both know the Lord Jesus Christ as our Saviour, and trust in His completed work on Calvary, praise His wonderful name!

ABSOLUTELY, David!! We both have that Eph 4:3-9 "unity" that we can fall back to if we lose our way in our personal "Pilgrim's Progress."

skypair

 

[Rippon]

But it does not seem as if my Calvinist counterparts are pursuing "knowledge and faith" of the same God.

Rip: Those kinds of statements are proof of your wackiness.


The heart of the matter for me is that Calvinism can't answer the question that is plain as the nose on your face about Christianity -- "How does God chose whom He does to salvation?" And if we can't know that as even RC Sproul admits Calvies can't and Calvin says we ought not look into, then how can we ever have assurance of salvation?

Rip: So I suppose you willfully chose to disregard Deuteronomy 29:29: "The LORD our God has secrets known to no one. We are not accountable for them, but we and our children are accountable forever for all that he has revealed to us, so that we may obey all the terms of these instructions."( NLTse). We simply are not privy to all of God's innner workings. The Lord chooses to reveal some things through His Word. Other things He did not deem proper for us to be informed about this side of glory.Can you accept that the Lord does things simply because it pleased Him to do so, without asking for your permission?

But Calvies will insist that its the "elect from before the foundation of the world"

Rip: Yes, because it happens to be perfectly biblical.Ya' got a problem with that?!

we can never be sure this side of heaven if we are a "chosen one" nor can we, according to Calvinism, DO anything about it. In fact, I've had 'em tell me you can believe all you want but it is false belief unless you are truly "elect" and can, thus, understand spiritual things

Rip: Do the words "These things I have written unto you that you might believe ..." mean anything to you?! People without the Spirit can't receive the things of God because they are spiritually discerned.See 1 Cor. 2:14 for clarification.If one is a child of God, one is elect. I seem to have to repeat this in every post to you Mr. Doubter. You do seem to be in some anxiety to verify if your election and calling are legitimate.

Our parents understood a lot more than we give them credit for and that seems to be the relationship here between me and some of my detractors.

Rip: What a hoot! You I take it are supposed to be the parent ?

the doctrines of grace whereby they got "dragged" to Christ

Rip: You do not even qualify as a slow learner -and that's giving you a lot of leeway.My posts are simply correcting your deliberate lies. No Calvinist here on the BB says or implies that we are "dragged to Christ." Stop telling falsehoods. Start being honest.

it seems to me quite obvious that you couldn't believe what you do if it had to fit into what the Bible says.

Rip: You were speaking to David with this remark of yours. This is typical Skypairism. So David, and by extension, all Calvinists could not possibly believe the way we do if we simply believed the Bible instead of our "system" or some such characterization you might come up with. What patent nonsense. We believe what we do because the Bible tells us so!We did not invent these truths, nor did we discover them because Calvin, Gill or Owen said so.Deal truthfully SP.