Calvinism vs. DoG??

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I am beginning to think that this obsession with what we call each other is an example of the first quotation in my signature line. We have allowed ourselves to be distracted by the semantics of names to the detriment of the discussion of the doctrine.

Its a good way to avoid the real discussion.

Tom, Im glad you brought that up.....even happier your here...your spot on with that. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[The Archangel]

I am beginning to think that this obsession with what we call each other is an example of the first quotation in my signature line. We have allowed ourselves to be distracted by the semantics of names to the detriment of the discussion of the doctrine.

Its a good way to avoid the real discussion.

And...you are probably correct. I'm not so much interested in the labels; my intent was to point out that there are several non-reformed types who would likely bristle at your use of "self-salvation." And, because of that bristling, more heat than light generally follows. That's all.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Luke2427]

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."

I appreciate your thoughts- I really do. I think you have a good point that the Doctrines of Grace did not begin in the 16th century but rather in eternity past.

But I think it is unfortunate that some feel the need to kowtow to Arminians and use terms they find more palatable.

Calvin was a great man and his name ought not be tossed out like a piece of trash just because some people are determined to stigmatize it.

He systematized our theology. No man contributed more to those doctrines and the spread of them than Calvin. He was brilliant. He was perhaps the most important of the Reformers; and to espouse the doctrines he systematized and refuse to be identified with him does not seem right to me.

I do not think he should be so lightly tossed aside. It would be like a black American refusing to be identified with Martin Luther King or any American refusing to be identified with George Washington.

I don't think it is honorable.

BTW, I like your bike. Is that a Valkerie?

 

[Luke2427]

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

Yea, I think that it is ironic that he avoids identifying himself as a Calvinist which is clearly what he is due to the fact that he thinks the term genders more heat than light and in the same post he calls those who would not find the term Calvinist palatable- "Sefl-salvationists"

I would certainly think that calling someone such a thing generates far more heat than light and a great deal more so than identifying oneself as a Calvinist (which is what he is).

I don't get it.

 

[TCassidy]

I do not think he should be so lightly tossed aside.

I do not toss John Calvin aside, lightly or otherwise. I find his writings informative and well ordered. I do not agree with some of his positions, but his "Institutes" is an excellent theology primer and no one can honestly say they have studied theology without having read the "Institutes."

However, I also believe our so great salvation is much too large to be contained in the name of a mere man.

BTW, I like your bike. Is that a Valkerie?

Yes. A Valkerie F6, 1500 cc horizontally opposed 6 cylinder (think Porsche engine) with 6 tuned single down draft carburetors feeding through short tube ram induction and a six speed, close ratio manual transmission. It brought my wife and me great joy to travel the mountains east of San Diego on a warm Saturday afternoon. Unfortunately my progressive neurological disorder no longer allows me to ride it. To keep it in the family I gave it to my son-in-law who rides it to work every day he is not halfway around the world on a business trip.

 

[TCassidy]

Yea, I think that it is ironic that he avoids identifying himself as a Calvinist which is clearly what he is due to the fact that he thinks the term genders more heat than light and in the same post he calls those who would not find the term Calvinist palatable- "Sefl-salvationists"

I would certainly think that calling someone such a thing generates far more heat than light and a great deal more so than identifying oneself as a Calvinist (which is what he is).

I don't get it.

Perhaps you misunderstood. To call yourself a Calvinist, in this venue, is an almost automatic shutdown of any reasoned discussion. But to use such a term as I did invites rebuttal. Even if that rebuttal is in the form of a denial. An excellent example can be seen in my discussions with quantumfaith.

 

[convicted1]

And so then, what are people called from the Reformed Theology?

Coming from the FW side, I call these people Brother or Sister in Christ!!:thumbs:

 

[Luke2427]

I do not toss John Calvin aside, lightly or otherwise. I find his writings informative and well ordered. I do not agree with some of his positions, but his "Institutes" is an excellent theology primer and no one can honestly say they have studied theology without having read the "Institutes."

However, I also believe our so great salvation is much too large to be contained in the name of a mere man.

Great. Thanks for clarifying.

Yes. A Valkerie F6, 1500 cc horizontally opposed 6 cylinder (think Porsche engine) with 6 tuned single down draft carburetors feeding through short tube ram induction and a six speed, close ratio manual transmission. It brought my wife and me great joy to travel the mountains east of San Diego on a warm Saturday afternoon. Unfortunately my progressive neurological disorder no longer allows me to ride it. To keep it in the family I gave it to my son-in-law who rides it to work every day he is not halfway around the world on a business trip.

Awesome. I love the look of the engine on those Valkeries. The unique pipe design really makes it stand out.

I had a Kawasaki Vulcan Nomad 1600 chromed out pretty good with the Cobra pipes. It was decked out with crash bars and hard saddle bags.

It would cruise! Nice slow staccato bom bom bom bom bom at 75 mph.

Sold it two years ago after I laid it down in Bastrop, LA going fifty. Crash bars saved it. I came away with some pretty good road rash and 8 stitches on my elbow. :godisgood: I have five kids. Decided I'd wait till they were grown to buy another one.

I hate to hear you can't ride it anymore. I know you miss it!

 

[Luke2427]

Perhaps you misunderstood. To call yourself a Calvinist, in this venue, is an almost automatic shutdown of any reasoned discussion. But to use such a term as I did invites rebuttal. Even if that rebuttal is in the form of a denial. An excellent example can be seen in my discussions with quantumfaith.

Gothcha. :thumbs:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Coming from the FW side, I call these people Brother or Sister in Christ!!:thumbs:

Thanks I do appreciate that

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Gothcha. :thumbs:

Luke, we are just trying to tone down the animosity.

 

[Old Union Brother]

Luke, we are just trying to town down the animosity.

Amen. I think that we can disagree with each other without being disagreeable. Know what I mean?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Amen. I think that we can disagree with each other without being disagreeable. Know what I mean?

Thanks but I should have spelled "Tone" correctly...LOL

 

[asterisktom]

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

Without getting into any of the debate I would say that I describe myself as a believer in the Doctrines of Grace. I now very rarely if ever refer to myself as Calvinist, but not only for the reasons I find mentioned here. I don't think it right - this is just me speaking for myself - to describe my Christianity under the label of a human.

Also, Calvin believes many things I do not believe in: His views on sacraments, the Lord's Day (and here, interestingly, his views seemed to have changed), his eschatology, his view on covenants, etc. To call myself "Calvinist" is to imply that i believe all these.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Without getting into any of the debate I would say that I describe myself as a believer in the Doctrines of Grace. I now very rarely if ever refer to myself as Calvinist, but not only for the reasons I find mentioned here. I don't think it right - this is just me speaking for myself - to describe my Christianity under the label of a human.

Also, Calvin believes many things I do not believe in: His views on sacraments, the Lord's Day (and here, interestingly, his views seemed to have changed), his eschatology, his view on covenants, etc. To call myself "Calvinist" is to imply that i believe all these.

Hear, Hear :applause:

 

[quantumfaith]

Perhaps you misunderstood. To call yourself a Calvinist, in this venue, is an almost automatic shutdown of any reasoned discussion. But to use such a term as I did invites rebuttal. Even if that rebuttal is in the form of a denial. An excellent example can be seen in my discussions with quantumfaith.

TCassidy, let me be clear, is the only way that we can have "reasoned" discussions is that I simply agree with you and all of your positions and the merrily go on my way? Denial of what? My only denial is that I do not see scripture and doctrines in the same way as do you. PERIOD!!!!!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

TCassidy, let me be clear, is the only way that we can have "reasoned" discussions is that I simply agree with you and all of your positions and the merrily go on my way? Denial of what? My only denial is that I do not see scripture and doctrines in the same way as do you. PERIOD!!!!!

Isnt capitalized words considered like shouting? I hope Dave, that isnt what you meant to do Brother.

 

[quantumfaith]

Isnt capitalized words considered like shouting? I hope Dave, that isnt what you meant to do Brother.

No, my intention was not shouting, but yes it was intended to be emphasized brother.

 

[TCassidy]

TCassidy, let me be clear, is the only way that we can have "reasoned" discussions is that I simply agree with you and all of your positions and the merrily go on my way?

Uh, no. That was my whole point!

Denial of what?

Denial of the label "self-salvationist."

My only denial is that I do not see scripture and doctrines in the same way as do you. PERIOD!!!!!

Exactly my point. But rather than just ignoring the discussion you chose to engage me in conversation. That was the goal.

 

[drfuss]

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.
From post #2

The Archangel

You sure have that backwards. Calvinism is not offensive and describes the belief; the term the doctrines of grace is offensive to many Non-Calvinists.

Using the term the doctrines of grace to describe Calvinism compared to Non-Calvinists, implies that Non-Calvinists do not believe in God's grace. All Christians believe in God's grace. Christians do not appreciate having their belief misrepresented, which results in much resentment and rejection.

Instead of the term the doctrines of grace, why not be more descriptive by using unconditional election and irresistible grace?