Calvinism

[gb93433]

What were Calvinists called before John Calvin?

 

[Eric B]

Probably Augustinians, buecause that's what the theology was known as.

 

[El_Guero]

Yes Calvin and Luther were augustinian catholics. But, Augustine was not a Calvinist . . .

Yes, New Yorkers are Americans, but I am not a New Yorker.

 

[Jarthur001]

Yes Calvin and Luther were augustinian catholics. But, Augustine was not a Calvinist . . .

Yes, New Yorkers are Americans, but I am not a New Yorker.

Part right...

1st it was between Paulinism and Judaistic

Then came Augustinism

Then it was named Calvinism..

BTW..Calvin was raised as a Catholic, but was never a augustinian monk. Not that it really matters...but I just want to keep it straight.

 

[El_Guero]

Intriguing . . . the next time I read his Institutes, I will be enlightened by what you have written and by what Vance wrote:

to prove conclusively that Calvin was a disciple of Augustine, we need look no further than Calvin himself. One can't read five pages in Calvin'sInstitutes without seeing the name of Augustine. Calvin quotes Augustine over four hundred times in the Institutes alone. He called Augustine by such titles as "holy man" and "holy father."

As cited at: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache...alvin++"augustinian"&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

 

[El_Guero]

I read Calvin, because I could not believe the manners in which he was described. To follow what people have written and said about the man, one might think that he was more pelagian than even pelagius himself.



After reading Calvin, I always think: "Why aren't our theologians of today half as logical as he was?"

 

[Eric B]

Part right...

1st it was between Paulinism and Judaistic

Then came Augustinism

Then it was named Calvinism..

No, because Paul and the Jews were not arguing over predestination, which is the primary destinctive of Augustine's and Calvin's theology.

 

[El_Guero]

Can you show me where Augustine said that?

No, because Paul and the Jews were not arguing over predestination, which is the primary destinctive of Augustine's and Calvin's theology.

 

[Chemnitz]

What were Calvinists called before John Calvin?

Crispy.

 

[J.D.]

No, because Paul and the Jews were not arguing over predestination, which is the primary destinctive of Augustine's and Calvin's theology.

God's free election of Gentiles to the faith is a core doctrine in Paul's theology, and theologians through the centuries have recognized that. Some, even today, in order to counter Paul's teachings, try to set Peter and James against Paul. A preacher recently did that very thing in the pulpit of the church I attend, saying, "Paul taught predestination, so God had Peter write his books to straighten Paul out". My right hand is up, that's what the man actually said. He's a graduate of a "respected" IFB Bible College in N.C.

 

[Jarthur001]

Intriguing . . . the next time I read his Institutes, I will be enlightened by what you have written and by what Vance wrote:



As cited at: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache...alvin++"augustinian"&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

You have got to be kidding. Vance? Have you read this book? It is a joke.

If you have not read the book..just read the link you posted. The man interchanges quotes from many men trying to make the reader think is is one big quote from with one like meaning. All one needs to do is look up his sources and see what he has done. I ask all to read your link to see this 1st hand. Its as bad as saying...James says his car is blue. Pete Rose had a blue car...so James bits on games. Really its that silly.

or..
You can read this review and others like it at the link below.. ...

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0962889873/?tag=baptis04-20

There is so much error and so many problems in this text, I am not sure where to begin. This is a text intended to 'prove' that the theological system called "Calvinism" is a false and anti-biblical theological system. The author, Laurence M. Vance (who is this guy anyway - the back of the book claims that he holds degrees in history and theology but never lets the reader know where those degrees are from) declares in the preface that he intends to 'prove' that Calvinism is false.

Ok, so he at least tells his reader his intent for writing the work. So how does he do this? From chapter one to the very last page, Vance strings together a bunch of quotes from various thinkers, theologians, etc. and in between all the quotes, he places a few sentences here and there to make the quotes seem like they are flowing into a certain stream of thought. It is quite difficult to describe how pathetic this type of 'scholarship' actually is. There is a huge difference between stringing quotes together and placing a few sentences between them with the idea that something is actually being said, and taking a work from a particular author, quoting from that author and trying to digest, examine, and evaluate what that author is actually communicating. The former often leads to misunderstanding, misquoting, and actually ripping quotes from works (out of context) and merely 'using' them to push an agenda. This is intellectual dishonesty, and this is what Vance's book suffers from the most.

Aside from the massive intellectual dishonesty of 'quote cutting and pasting,' Vance argues that he will prove that HISTORICAL Calvinism is false. The interesting thing about this claim, is that he NEVER quotes from the Synod of Dort (that I could find in reading and studying his work - which is not to say that it is possible that I overlooked it - but after several years of examining this text, I have still yet to find the Synod of Dort in this work). Moreover, he only quotes from John Calvin about 6 times. The majority of the 'string of quotes' that he uses (many out of context) come from 20th century theologians and Calvinists. There are a few quotes from 19th century Calvinists and theologians, but even those are often misused.

Another huge problem that runs rampant in this work is Vance's complete misunderstanding of Calvinism as a theological system. Vance uses a string of quotes from various Calvinist theologians describing that Calvinism is simply the gospel message. He then equates these quotes (that Calvinism is the gospel message) to a single quote from Calvin, as the idea that the whole Calvinistic theological system is the actual gospel. In other words, as Vance puts it, comparing a quote from Paul in I Corinthians 15:1-4 describing what the gospel message is in the verses, and a very small quote from John Calvin's 'Institutes' describing the doctrine of predestination, Vance concludes that because Calvin is not saying exactly what Paul is saying therefore Calvin is espousing a false gospel. Thus, the whole system (which was pulled from quotes of contemporary Calvinists) of Calvinism based on one single quote from Calvin is false because it (the one quote) does not communicate what Paul communicates in the verses from Corinthians. Several problems should be pointed out here with the way Vance has approached this 'Falsity'

First, Vance is using a strawman argument against John Calvin. The quote that Vance uses by Calvin never declares that Calvin claims that what he is saying is 'the Gospel' Besides, the whole Calvinist system is not contained in the one quote from Calvin that Vance uses.

Second, to take a small quote from a massive work like the 'Institutes' and compare it to a verse in the Bible in a very specific manner like Vance has done is confusing at best. It is like taking a sentence from an entire book and thinking that that single sentence from a massive work details every aspect of that work. Then comparing it to another sentence from a massive work and saying that because they do not say the same thing, one or the other is false. That's simply insane.

Third, the quote he takes from John Calvin is a quote where Calvin is delineating a small aspect of a larger theological idea which ultimately flows into the gospel message, Calvin would never agree that the one single small idea that has a much larger theological scope would sum its own self up as the gospel. There is so much more to the overall system than that. To say otherwise is intellectual dishonesty - but once again, that is the biggest problem with Vance's work.

Another problem that is noted throughout Vance's work is the idea that it seems that he thinks that Calvinist believe that the Bible lines itself up with Calvinism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any Calvinist theologian worth his weight would always agree that Calvinism as a theological system lines up with the Bible, not vice versa. Calvinists are not trying to make the Bible 'Calvinistic' Calvinism as a theological system is believed by every major Calvinist throughout Church history to conform to the Biblical text (Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, the Synod of Dort, Edwards, etc.) These great thinkers firmly believed that Calvinism was simply an interpretation of the Bible. They believed that the Bible taught these great tenets. Vance does not seem to understand this, instead he communicates Calvinism to his reader as if everyone who adheres to it believes that the system is greater than the Bible.

The problem with Vance's text is that it is so filled with error that an entire book could be written merely to sort out Vance's errors. This book is the worst treatment of Calvinism I have ever read. It is worse than Norman Geisler's work, "Chosen But Free," and that's actually saying something about Vance's work. My guess is that Laurence Vance is a fringe thinker for a group of King James only advocates and this is why his credentials are never mentioned other than to say that he has them. Granted this does not make his work erroneous (I have listed a few factors for that above - though I have hardly scratch the surface), but it certainly goes a long way in explaining his stated agenda for the book. I would say read this book for a good laugh, but then again I would not recommend this kind of nonsense to anyone unless you have a strong ability to discern good scholarship from really bad scholarship. Therefore, I would not recommend this work at all. There are other, more honest works out there attempting to 'debunk' Calvinism (but in a vein attempt I might add) ; )

 

[El_Guero]

Regardless, even a city boy can hit the inside of a barn with the doors closed.

This sounds like the man that wrote this has read the Institutes . . . I did one quick read and keep meaning to read him again . . . have you?

Calvin held Augustine in very high regard . . . and it showed up in his book(s) . . .

Maybe instead of obfuscating . . . you could point out where Calvin said Augustine was wrong . . . If you cannot and ask nicely, I could look it up for you.

Calvin quotes Augustine over four hundred times in the Institutes alone. He called Augustine by such titles as "holy man" and "holy father."

 

[El_Guero]

And, being a fair man, didn't you intend to post the positive reviews?

Editorial Reviews

Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Fall, 2001)
I recommend this book as a super resource on the issue of Calvinism--Robert Wilkin, editor.

Pulpit Helps (January, 2000)
Even Calvinists will find this book informative and challenging, as I did--Bob Dasal.

 

[whatever]

What were Calvinists called before John Calvin?

Biblicists.

:tongue3:

 

[Jarthur001]

Regardless, even a city boy can hit the inside of a barn with the doors closed.

This sounds like the man that wrote this has read the Institutes . . . I did one quick read and keep meaning to read him again . . . have you?

Calvin held Augustine in very high regard . . . and it showed up in his book(s) . . .

Maybe instead of obfuscating . . . you could point out where Calvin said Augustine was wrong . . . If you cannot and ask nicely, I could look it up for you.

I have read most of it...the part about grace.

Calvin did read Augustine and did like the man very much. All I was saying in my 1st post was this...

Some claim Calvin was a RCC monk, which you seemed to be saying in your post, but the RCC says they have no record of it.

Now luther was a monk of the of the Augustine order. As far as being wrong, both men were wrong in some areas. Both men were sinners for one thing. They also had some ideas I do not agree with. But the Calvin the man is not Calvinism the Bible based doctrine. For some reason this must be one of the hardest things for non- Calvinist to understand, for it always comes up. Non-Calvinist tell more stories about John Calvin and even quote calvin more then Calvinist do. Calvinist tend to talk more about the doctrine. Non-Calvinist only talk about the man john. We do not pray to Calvin or think that Calvin was God. Calvin wrote a few good books, but this does not mean he was never wrong. Calvin as i'm sure you know didn't even write the 5 points. Calvinist was used as a "name calling" word by non-Calvinst just to get under their skin so to speak. This was much like the Ana-Baptist, for they didn't pick their name either. In time, both names held.

If it does not line up with the Bible, do not believe it.
If it does line up with the Bible and the man sinned in another area...do we then not believe the truth?

Maybe we should get rid of Davids writings too.



In Christ..James

 

[Jarthur001]

And, being a fair man, didn't you intend to post the positive reviews?

My post was not to show both sides, yet I was not trying to hid the fact that there are other sides, for I posted the link where you can read on your own. My post was to show the way I feel about the book which I read part of about 6 months ago and also show that I am not the only one with this view.

 

[Blammo]

For some reason this must be one of the hardest things for non- Calvinist to understand, for it always comes up. Non-Calvinist tell more stories about John Calvin and even quote calvin more then Calvinist do. Calvinist tend to talk more about the doctrine. Non-Calvinist only talk about the man john. We do not pray to Calvin or think that Calvin was God. Calvin wrote a few good books, but this does not mean he was never wrong. Calvin as i'm sure you know didn't even write the 5 points.

1) If someone claims to be a calvinist today, what does it mean?
2) If someone only believes 4 of the 5 points, are they a calvinist?
3) Is there such a thing as a moderate calvinist?
4) Can someone believe in less than 4 points and still be a calvinist?
5) If Calvin didn't write the five points, why are they called the 5 points of calvinism?

I have said before, "I don't understand why one would call himself a calvinist, unless he subscribed to all the theology of Calvin". But now I would just like to know what it means to be calvinist. James, you stated above that you don't believe all of Calvin's theology. So, what makes you a calvinist? Am I a calvinist? It seems like there are many things you and I disagree on, but, do we need to agree for me to be a calvinist? I can tell you for sure, I am not an arminian.

 

[Jarthur001]

1) If someone claims to be a calvinist today, what does it mean?
2) If someone only believes 4 of the 5 points, are they a calvinist?
3) Is there such a thing as a moderate calvinist?
4) Can someone believe in less than 4 points and still be a calvinist?
5) If Calvin didn't write the five points, why are they called the 5 points of calvinism?

I have said before, "I don't understand why one would call himself a calvinist, unless he subscribed to all the theology of Calvin". But now I would just like to know what it means to be calvinist. James, you stated above that you don't believe all of Calvin's theology. So, what makes you a calvinist? Am I a calvinist? It seems like there are many things you and I disagree on, but, do we need to agree for me to be a calvinist? I can tell you for sure, I am not an arminian.

I hold to his doctrines of grace. This would be the phrase most so called Calvinist would rather go by. But in the end if you hold to the doctrines of grace you will be labled a Calvinist...mark my word. I use to fight it, but I say whatever now.

I do believe Calvins theology, but do not hold to his doctrines of the church for one thing. I'm using the word theology here in the pure sense. Or...study of God.

Also...Baptisim, being of the Baptist faith, I can not agree with his doctrine on Baptisim.

There are other things I do not agree with. Also Calvin had a way with words and could really open up the passage in full light. Yet I do not always agree with his views on each passage. Nothing big other then one place(heb 6). We all have our own ideas. Just because Calvin wrote it, does not mean it is right. If we feel the writer is off whoever that maybe...we need to keep looking to find peace in our heart about it.

1) If someone claims to be a calvinist today, what does it mean?

Many things. But mainly GRACE. This is not to say Free-willers do not hold to grace. They do, but they see it just as a gift from God. The doctrines of grace say it is a gift and much more.

2) If someone only believes 4 of the 5 points, are they a calvinist?

Some say no...but I say yes. Election and depravity are what sets us apart from free-willers. The atonement is the biggest one to over come for most. Although I hold to the Calvin view of atonement now, it took me 10 years. But I never study it doing that time. If you do not, you may like the works of G. C. Morgan, who did not hold to limited atonement, but held to election. A GREAT writer.

3) Is there such a thing as a moderate calvinist?

Yes...or light calvinist. I maybe wrong, but your post of late seems to be leaning that way. If so..you may like Floyd H Barackman...Practical Christian Theology...which I have and have used so much it is falling apart.

4) Can someone believe in less than 4 points and still be a calvinist?

This would be light calvin.

5) If Calvin didn't write the five points, why are they called the 5 points of calvinism?

The reformation age, ...I am weak in history of this age. But the points were wrote something like 70-80 years after Calvins death. The 5 points of Calvinism which are a summation of the canons rendered by the Synod of Dort are based on Calvins views of the Bible doctrine and were published as to response to the five points of the Arminian.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil//creeds/dort.htm


In Christ...James

 

[Brother Bob]

What is Grace?

 

[gb93433]

1) If someone claims to be a calvinist today, what does it mean?
2) If someone only believes 4 of the 5 points, are they a calvinist?
3) Is there such a thing as a moderate calvinist?
4) Can someone believe in less than 4 points and still be a calvinist?
5) If Calvin didn't write the five points, why are they called the 5 points of calvinism?

I know some who believe in six points. What would they be called?