Calvinism vs. DoG??

[convicted1]

I found this on a website and thought I would ask an honest and sincere question to those who hold to the DoG.

The Doctrines of Grace
Although also referred to as The Five Points of Calvinism, these are simply five key teachings found in the Bible that were written down as articles by the Synod of Dort in 1610. This was done to counter the five articles published by the followers of a man named James Arminius that were at variance with the Bible.

These five articles underline the vitally important truth that God is in control of all things, not man; that God is the source of salvation; and that men and women can do nothing to save themselves. They glorify God, not man, and emphasise our total dependence as guilty sinners on the mercy and grace of God for salvation. It is the belief of all those who have a presence on the GraceNet site that they form the foundation of true biblical Christianity.

The question I have is this: What are the differences in these two theologies? I read a post that someone stated that Calvinism could lead to an elitist attitude, whereas DoG leads to a humble Christian. Every thing I have look at for Calvinism, it says "also referred to as DoG", and when I look up DoG, it says, "also referred to as Calvinism". So what seperates the two from each other? I am trluy curious, because coming from someone who holds to FW, I don't know the differences. Please explain the differences for me. Thanks in advance!!:thumbs::thumbs:

i am I am's!!

Willis

 

[The Archangel]

I found this on a website and thought I would ask an honest and sincere question to those who hold to the DoG.

The Doctrines of Grace
Although also referred to as The Five Points of Calvinism, these are simply five key teachings found in the Bible that were written down as articles by the Synod of Dort in 1610. This was done to counter the five articles published by the followers of a man named James Arminius that were at variance with the Bible.

These five articles underline the vitally important truth that God is in control of all things, not man; that God is the source of salvation; and that men and women can do nothing to save themselves. They glorify God, not man, and emphasise our total dependence as guilty sinners on the mercy and grace of God for salvation. It is the belief of all those who have a presence on the GraceNet site that they form the foundation of true biblical Christianity.

The question I have is this: What are the differences in these two theologies? I read a post that someone stated that Calvinism could lead to an elitist attitude, whereas DoG leads to a humble Christian. Every thing I have look at for Calvinism, it says "also referred to as DoG", and when I look up DoG, it says, "also referred to as Calvinism". So what seperates the two from each other? I am trluy curious, because coming from someone who holds to FW, I don't know the differences. Please explain the differences for me. Thanks in advance!!:thumbs::thumbs:

i am I am's!!

Willis

Calvinism and the Doctrines of Grace are synonymous. Unfortunately the label "Calvinist" or "Calvinism" usually elicits fierce opposition from the anti-Calvinists. Most anti-Calvinists also know that the DoG is synonymous and so they attack that too.

Where using the term "Doctrines of Grace" is quite helpful is this: Explaining theology to those who have never seen true "Calvinism." Most anti-Calvinists react against a caricature, as opposed to an accurate picture, and they spread that distorted caricature as the true visage of Calvinism.

So, Calvinism tends to be divisive in the vernacular. Doctrines of Grace removes the stumbling block placed there by the anti-Calvinists who do their best to besmirch Calvinists with a false caricature.

But, there is no real difference.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[quantumfaith]

The following are "virtually" all synonymous terms, however it is certainly possible there are nuanced differences.

Calvinist
Historical Baptist
Doctrines of Grace
Reformed Theology
Puritan Theology
Augustianism


If incorrect, I suspect I will be corrected, or feel free to add to the list.

 

[quantumfaith]

Calvinism and the Doctrines of Grace are synonymous. Unfortunately the label "Calvinist" or "Calvinism" usually elicits fierce opposition from the anti-Calvinists. Most anti-Calvinists also know that the DoG is synonymous and so they attack that too.

Where using the term "Doctrines of Grace" is quite helpful is this: Explaining theology to those who have never seen true "Calvinism." Most anti-Calvinists react against a caricature, as opposed to an accurate picture, and they spread that distorted caricature as the true visage of Calvinism.

So, Calvinism tends to be divisive in the vernacular. Doctrines of Grace removes the stumbling block placed there by the anti-Calvinists who do their best to besmirch Calvinists with a false caricature.

But, there is no real difference.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Just, in an effort to be clear Archangel. Is it, in your view, that anyone who disagrees with the position, interpretation, philosophy of D oG "besmirching" of Calvinism with "false caricature"?

 

[TCassidy]

I, for the most part, seldom refer to my soteriology as "Calvinist." That word engenders so much hate and strife from the "self-salvationist" crowd that it usually attracts more heat than light.

I am a Particular Baptist. I believe Christ actually saved me on the cross, and did not merely make it possible to save myself using my (fictitious) "free will." Prior to God's regeneration my will was not free, it was bound by the law of sin and death.

Furthermore, as Jean Cauvin (John Calvin) was a figure late in history, I do not identify with him as my soteriology does not date to the Reformation period, but dates to eternity past, in the mind and heart of God, and was revealed in the bible, both old and new testaments long before Calvin, Luther, Knox, or any of the other reformers. (Jonah 2:9, and Ephesians 2:8-10.)

The term "Doctrines of Grace" simply means "What the Bible teaches about Grace." And every Christian will claim to believe "what the bible teaches about grace" - even those self-salvationists who claim "free will" and deny the bondage of sin and death.

So, as with all such labels, they are limited in their usefullness to those who understand what the labels mean. It matters not if the can says "Tomato Sauce" or "Cat Food" if you can't read the label.

The bottom line is I did not choose Him, He chose me. John 15:16 "You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you."

 

[quantumfaith]

I, for the most part, seldom refer to my soteriology as "Calvinist." That word engenders so much hate and strife from the "self-salvationist" crowd that it usually attracts more heat than light.

Now, Now, isnt that also being a bit disengenuous?

 

[TCassidy]

Now, Now, isnt that also being a bit disengenuous?

No. The very idea of "free will" says that there is something unfallen in man contrary to the doctrine of sin. Paul made it clear in Romans 11, "6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work." Grace and works cannot be mixed. "Coming of my own free will" is a work of man not the grace of God.

 

[webdog]

I, for the most part, seldom refer to my soteriology as "Calvinist." That word engenders so much hate and strife from the "self-salvationist" crowd that it usually attracts more heat than light.


Now, Now, isnt that also being a bit disengenuous?

I'ts become the norm here on the BB. It's funny they no problem dishing this kind of nonsense out, but cry like children when it's done to them.

 

[webdog]

No. The very idea of "free will" says that there is something unfallen in man contrary to the doctrine of sin. Paul made it clear in Romans 11, "6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work." Grace and works cannot be mixed. "Coming of my own free will" is a work of man not the grace of God.

Free will says no such thing, what a gross misrepresentation of a contrary view...and I'm sure you are aware Romans 11 is in regards to Israel, right?

 

[The Archangel]

Just, in an effort to be clear Archangel. Is it, in your view, that anyone who disagrees with the position, interpretation, philosophy of D oG "besmirching" of Calvinism with "false caricature"?

No. Not at all.

The besmirching and false caricature come in when people say that Calvinists do not believe in evangelism or when people say that Calvinists believe the Elect are born saved or when people say that Calvinists preach a different Gospel. These are all caricatures. Some that engage in the practice of besmirching Calvinists refuse to be corrected on the issue(s). This is what I'm referencing. When someone (a Calvinist) corrects an anti-Calvinist on what we actually do or what we actually believe and yet that anti-Calvinist goes on spreading the false caricature, that runs into the problem of intentionally giving out false and misleading information...and it is probably done with the purpose of keeping people in their ignorant indoctrination.

I have no problem with Arminian-types (note: not anti-Calvinists) getting into civil, scriptural discussions with Calvinists about Calvinism or getting into scriptural discussions with those who are truly ignorant about the Doctrines.

Sadly, many of the examples I have seen of anti-Calvinist activity is based on two things: 1.) a person who has been indoctrinated themselves and 2.) a person who really does not have a good handle on the Bible. Now, that is not to say that those who have not been indoctrinated and who can handle the Bible well will become Calvinists.

I'd much rather have someone who knows their own position and can argue it biblically and someone who knows and properly articulates the converse position than someone who knows what they believe, but has no idea why.

And, I'll say, I'd rather deal with an Arminian who properly handles scripture than an indoctrinated Calvinist.

The Archangel

 

[quantumfaith]

No. The very idea of "free will" says that there is something unfallen in man contrary to the doctrine of sin. Paul made it clear in Romans 11, "6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work." Grace and works cannot be mixed. "Coming of my own free will" is a work of man not the grace of God.

Ahh, the old "faith is a works" argument. Well, brother, we simply disagree with that one.

 

[quantumfaith]

No. Not at all.

The besmirching and false caricature come in when people say that Calvinists do not believe in evangelism or when people say that Calvinists believe the Elect are born saved or when people say that Calvinists preach a different Gospel. These are all caricatures. Some that engage in the practice of besmirching Calvinists refuse to be corrected on the issue(s). This is what I'm referencing. When someone (a Calvinist) corrects an anti-Calvinist on what we actually do or what we actually believe and yet that anti-Calvinist goes on spreading the false caricature, that runs into the problem of intentionally giving out false and misleading information...and it is probably done with the purpose of keeping people in their ignorant indoctrination.

I have no problem with Arminian-types (note: not anti-Calvinists) getting into civil, scriptural discussions with Calvinists about Calvinism or getting into scriptural discussions with those who are truly ignorant about the Doctrines.

Sadly, many of the examples I have seen of anti-Calvinist activity is based on two things: 1.) a person who has been indoctrinated themselves and 2.) a person who really does not have a good handle on the Bible. Now, that is not to say that those who have not been indoctrinated and who can handle the Bible well will become Calvinists.

I'd much rather have someone who knows their own position and can argue it biblically and someone who knows and properly articulates the converse position than someone who knows what they believe, but has no idea why.

And, I'll say, I'd rather deal with an Arminian who properly handles scripture than an indoctrinated Calvinist.

The Archangel

Honestly speaking, I was a little confused. Left handed compliment, or perhaps I am just so simple that I did fully understand you?

 

[The Archangel]

I, for the most part, seldom refer to my soteriology as "Calvinist." That word engenders so much hate and strife from the "self-salvationist" crowd that it usually attracts more heat than light.

Friend,

While we are likely very close in our theology, I want to encourage you that referring to our opponents as "Self-Salvationists" is not helpful. This term itself generates more heat than light and it is not exactly accurate.

Our opponents still believe that God saves them, thought they typically think God saves as a response to them rather than them responding to God. Though I know how and why you use your phrase, it does not accurately portray their thinking about themselves. As such, the phrase isn't helpful.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Honestly speaking, I was a little confused. Left handed compliment, or perhaps I am just so simple that I did fully understand you?

It is possible that I was not as clear as I needed to be.

The Archangel

 

[quantumfaith]

Friend,

While we are likely very close in our theology, I want to encourage you that referring to our opponents as "Self-Salvationists" is not helpful. This term itself generates more heat than light and it is not exactly accurate.

Our opponents still believe that God saves them, thought they typically think God saves as a response to them rather than them responding to God. Though I know how and why you use your phrase, it does not accurately portray their thinking about themselves. As such, the phrase isn't helpful.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Thank you for your "gentleness"

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I'ts become the norm here on the BB. It's funny they no problem dishing this kind of nonsense out, but cry like children when it's done to them.

Web.....so what are you objecting to?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Friend,

While we are likely very close in our theology, I want to encourage you that referring to our opponents as "Self-Salvationists" is not helpful. This term itself generates more heat than light and it is not exactly accurate.

Our opponents still believe that God saves them, thought they typically think God saves as a response to them rather than them responding to God. Though I know how and why you use your phrase, it does not accurately portray their thinking about themselves. As such, the phrase isn't helpful.

Blessings,

The Archangel

So just what do you call them? No-Cals.....thats pathetic.

 

[Amy.G]

So just what do you call them? No-Cals.....thats pathetic.

Christians?

 

[TCassidy]

Ahh, the old "faith is a works" argument.

I am not sure whose post you were reading that resulted in that statement but I do not believe faith is a work. Where in the world did you get that idea?

Well, brother, we simply disagree with that one.

If we disagree does that mean you believe faith is a work? I don't. I believe faith is a gift from God. How do you reconcile your belief that faith is a work with the many times where the bible clearly says it is a gift?

 

[TCassidy]

Friend,

While we are likely very close in our theology, I want to encourage you that referring to our opponents as "Self-Salvationists" is not helpful. This term itself generates more heat than light and it is not exactly accurate.

Our opponents still believe that God saves them, thought they typically think God saves as a response to them rather than them responding to God. Though I know how and why you use your phrase, it does not accurately portray their thinking about themselves. As such, the phrase isn't helpful.

Blessings,

The Archangel

How else should I refer to them? Se-salvationists after the se-baptists of the 17th century?

According to those whom I have had the opportunity to discuss this issue with they must assist Christ in their salvation by coming to him, making a choice, walking an aisle, praying a prayer, or doing some other thing through the exercise of their "free will."

If Christ, and Christ alone, without their help, cannot save them then, to what ever extent He needed their assistance, they have practiced self-salvation (at least in their own eyes).