Featured Calvinism - an attempt at a common definition for the sake of discussion

Many who see it in Scripture for themselves seem to run the span from either hating to be identified as "Calvinists" to wearing it like a warm coat, as I see it.
What I will say, is that I've gone from being more militant ( meaning against being labeled that way ) to resigning myself to the fact that I am probably going to be stigmatized with it for the rest of my life.

I can live with that, but I feel that in the truest sense, if I were a "Calvinist" then I would believe everything that the man whose name is attached to it, taught and held to.
I don't.
In fact, I don't even own a copy of the "Institutes", have never read through it, and have only read the chapter on "Predestination" once...and that was only AFTER I had already seen election in Scripture.
However, for the purposes of discussion on this forum, I will accept the label of "Calvinist" if that helps people to identify with me as agreeing with "TULIP", which is what I see when I study God's word for myself.

Truth be told, no matter who disagrees with me, I see it as the Gospel of grace, not "Calvinism"...and the "doctrines of grace" are the TULIP, while other doctrines are also included.
Why?

History seems to have summarized it best when the debate came up for the 3rd ( or was it 4th? ) time.
The Synod of Dordrecht during 1618-1619 took over 6 months to formulate a very good reply to the Remonstrants, and I don't think I could have done better.

With that said, I doubt you will get people to conform to your desire, Jon, because people who disagree with it will always associate it with John Calvin, whether or not it began with him, and whether or not other men ( who had most probably never been exposed to his teachings, like William Tyndale ) wrote about it.

From my perspective, Calvin's "Institutes", and those who took the work further, have taken the lead in deciding the name, even though it was not their intention...

Perhaps we should call it what the Council of Trent calls it?
Anathema.
On second thought, I wouldn't want that...but then, I don't have any control over what people want to call me.


That's my take on it, anyway.

 

Give me an example. I think part of the problem was venturing to describe God's character as a fallen person sees it. A fallen person's idea of Justice is mere retribution and satisfying suffering and pain through sadism .

A fallen person's idea of God's heart is God doesn't care for you at all. Its nothing about you, you just unconditionally won a spiritual lotto.

Its extending what might have once been proper humility into false humility at the expense of God's character.

John 15

15“No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.

1 John 4

8The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.


My understanding of God is absolutely and easily identifiable as GOOD a Hero even. No mysterious Evil that need be sugar coated as "Good".

Let me tell you if some all powerful being showed up says well I like you guys but Jon, I never chose him, never liked him, he can go to hell.

I would have your back, under the threat of all hell. That is the actual voice of God in my heart.

Its not POWER and the idea of how absolute power behaves in regards to mercy and kindness.

Jesus did not swoop down with a legion of angels and wipe everyone out.

Its how absolute LOVE displays power itself.


Do you understand if the WHOLE UNIVERSE hated you said well lets put this guy in hell. I will be there with a baseball bat saying come try!

I would think the devil would egg me on just please the crowd easy path even delight in your demise.

Where does that mercy come from if its not the devil's?

 

NO ONE is born predestined to be lost, with no hope of salvation. Remember, God said He's willing that ALL should come to salvation, but, of course, He knows many won't.

That's my whole beef against calvinism. Jesus even gave Judas the chance to repent & truly come to Him, as He said, in His presence, that He was to be betrayed by one of His disciples, & that it'd be better for that man to have never been born, and He told Judas a little later, "Go and do what you must do, quickly!" But those 30 pieces of silver shined too brightly in Judas' mind for him to heed Jesus. Had he done so & been forgiven, someone else in the gang that sought Jesus to arrest Him woulda recognized Him.

Now, if everyone were already predestinated, with no chance to change it, there'd be no use for Bibles, preachers, or worship at all!

 

Believe it or not, there’s more to this than just the usual two sides. I’ve recently started a thread explaining this. But with little interest. But there is a middle view. As one in the middle, I suggest that Calvinism & Arminianism ( or, Traditionalism, if you prefer) would be better defined by what they deny than by what they affirm . The reason is that the middle view shares some of the affirmations of both sides, causing Middlers to be called Calvinists by Arminians and Arminians by Calvinists. As I see it, Calvinists deny that men have the full freedom to “choose otherwise,” Arminians deny that God controls the destinies of men with unconditional election, and Centrists deny neither.

 

Well I think all 5 points of Calvinism are wrong (as are the 5 counterpoints of Arminius) ... yet I do believe that God absolutely foreknew which people would believe, and yes, created those who would never come to faith nonetheless knowing full well they would suffer eternal damnation.

Yet, without an element of human choice, then the Calvinist god himself is chief among sinners as he would be the author and finisher of sin. The all-sovereign god of Calvinism is personally responsible for causing man to sin. Therefore man is neither responsible for his sin, nor for his faith. Man is an innocent bystander in a great cosmic animation. And therein is the ultimate, underlying goal of Calvinism -- absolute absolution of responsibility for sin. They want to feel like God was just in complete control and they played no part in their sin. Forgiveness of sin and removal of guilt is not enough for the Calvinist... they want to feel free from ever having been guilty of sin by blaming God for it from before the foundation of the world.

For predestinated sin and predestinated election go hand-in-hand. Either God is all-sovereign and caused the elect to believe, and caused the chosen to be saved as well as caused the sinner to sin, or he is not all-sovereign.

 

Here are a few areas I cannot see the Calvinistic view holding correct ground.

1) I do not agree with the typical presentation of the Calvinistic view of atonement. They place limit upon blood, not upon belief.

2) I do not agree with double predestination for two reasons.

First, as it relates to the unregenerate, one is not predestined to condemnation but already condemned. That such are yet not cast into eternal death does not make them alive waiting for that decision, but already dead, already separated from God, ... ​

Second, I do contend children prior to becoming aware of the sinfulness of sin are held as unaccountable, safe from condemnation. They are innocent and such innocence ones make up the kingdom of heaven. ​

Double predestination forces one to accept a baby, unaware of evil and sin, is condemned by account of a birth and not by the law. The law is good, but both babies and believers are not under the law. Just as the first Adam turned to the appeal to the flesh, as babies become aware the law raises the flesh to sin and being sin filled.
​

 

Calvinism has several sub groups. The Universal atonement group. The limited atonement group. The Supralapsarians and the Infralapsarians (google it if you do not know). But possibly the 5 points according to Dordt is what most are familiar with.

 

Whether or not people agree with "its" teachings, I see this thread attempting to arrive at a common consensus about what name "Calvinism" should be called by.
With that in mind, I think the thread is starting to de-rail.

It appears that it is degenerating and that people who don't agree with it are offering their opinions about it, rather than contributing helpful names that it could be labeled as.
** On a side note, I also suspect that, if left up to everyone, there will be no consensus other than to pin it with the label of "Calvinism" and leave it there.


For example, I tend to call everything opposed to TULIP, "Arminianism", even though, in the strictest sense, that label is painting things with a broader "brush" than it should be.
To me, anything that opposes God's complete will in salvation, which includes having mercy upon whom He wills and having compassion upon whom He wills ( Exodus 33:19, Romans 9:14-16 ), should probably be called "the free will gospel" or even "Semi-Pelagianism", since I happen to think they fit better.

Jacob Hermanszoon ( Arminius ) taught his followers something a fair bit closer than what has come to be called "Arminianism" today.

To my way of thinking ( and many I'm finding out ), "Wesleyanism" or "5 Point Arminianism" have become synonymous, and are often used as labels to describe the "free will gospel" and have become labeled "Arminianism" by default.
"Traditionalism" ( what I grew up with and what I consider to be "4 Point Wesleyan Arminianism" ) now has a name that is becoming generally agreed upon...though it never did while I was growing up in it.

The "Calvninists" call it "Arminianism", but fail to differentiate Hermanzoon's teachings from John Wesley's teachings from John R. Rice's teachings.



With this is in mind, are there any helpful names, besides "Calvinism", that could be used?

 

The precise (and very apt) term for 5Point/TULIP pushers is Gomarists:

Dictionary of Religion

"Gomarists or Anti-Remonstrants. —The opponents of the Arminians. They take their name from their leader, Francis Gomar, who was born at Bruges in 1563. He commenced his studies at Strasburg and Heidelberg, and in 1582 came to England, and went first to Oxford and then to Cambridge, where he took his B. D. in 1581. In 1594 he was elected Professor of Divinity at Leyden, and he is chiefly known for his violent opposition to the doctrines of his colleague Arminius. He was present at the Synod of Dort, in 1618, and was the main instrument in getting the Arminians expelled from the Reformed Church....He was a man of great learning, and very bigoted in his views"

 

Likewise The Gospel Coalition:

"In 1603, Arminius was appointed professor of theology at the University of Leiden, where he was strongly opposed by his colleague, Francis Gomarus. Both Arminius and Gomarus....thought of themselves as Reformed, as Calvinists....Following Arminius’ death in 1609....the Arminian party issued a document called the Remonstrance, setting forth the “Five Articles of the Arminians.” Gomarus and others formed a Contra-Remonstrance party (Gomarists) to oppose the Arminians"

"Oldenbarneveldt, Advocate-General of Holland...wanted toleration for the Arminians. The Contra-Remonstrance from Gomarists was submitted to the States of Holland in 1611. Oldenbarneveldt and the States of Holland decided on toleration....Prince Maurice, the son and heir of William of Orange, eventually took the side of the Gomarists....Maurice had Olderbarneveldt and others imprisoned... the Estates-General called for an assembly [the Synod of Dort]"

 

So, I guess you don't believe 2 Peter 3:9 ?

 

Come on! Do you really think for a moment that anyone here believes any verse of scripture is in the bible by mistake, just plain WRONG, and not to be believed at all?

My money is on "Whatever any verse says, any disagreement is one of how it should be interpreted/understood rather than one of belief vs rejection."

A little honesty, please (ie. tone down the rhetoric).

 

This is incorrect. That is not what Calvinists mean with limited atonement. The limitation of atonement is purpose. What was the PURPOSE of that Sacrifice. Was it to atone for the sins of all or was it only to save those who are the elect. This does not limit the blood at all. The blood is sufficient to save all, but that is not the purpose or application of the sacrifice.

 

Only one way to interpret that verse.

God is TOTALLY JUST. It would be the most-unjust thing imaginable for Him to create a soul just for the purpose of sending it to the lake of fire, a place He originally created for Satan & his angels, not man.

 

Seems omniscience would be super-boring. We don't know what God REALLY chooses to know. As God is totally just, I don't believe He would create a soul just to send it to the lake of fire, a place He originally made for Satan & the angels who followed him.

 

Salvation is open to all living mortal people.