Calvinist Confusion

[Reformed]

I have no problem being called a Calvinist because I know what is meant by the term. Charles Spurgeon understood it's meaning to be more narrow than embracing the totality of Calvin's theology. I have advanced beyond being upset when opponents of Calvinism call me a determinist or fatalist. A person can call me whatever they want. I simply refuse to argue from another person's premise. In most of the debates on the BB that I have participated in about Calvinism, I have tried to offer a biblical defense. I just choose to ignore pejorative statements since they are wholly subjective and expose my interlocutor's inability to engage in a meaningful debate. For a time I used the terms Monergist and Synergist in substitution of Calvinist and Arminian but I finally came to the conclusion it was naught else than stepping on eggshells. I have since decided to pick and choose which discussions to participate in. I am still of the opinion that the real audience for these discussions are those who read them but seldom post. That makes engaging and disengaging from BB discussions much easier.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[JonC]

I have no problem being called a Calvinist because I know what is meant by the term. Charles Spurgeon understood it's meaning to be more narrow than embracing the totality of Calvin's theology. I have advanced beyond being upset when opponents of Calvinism call me a determinist or fatalist. A person can call me whatever they want. I simply refuse to argue from another person's premise. In most of the debates on the BB that I have participated in about Calvinism, I have tried to offer a biblical defense. I just choose to ignore pejorative statements since they are wholly subjective and expose my interlocutor's inability to engage in a meaningful debate. For a time I used the terms Monergist and Synergist in substitution of Calvinist and Arminian but I finally came to the conclusion it was naught else than stepping on eggshells. I have since decided to pick and choose which discussions to participate in. I am still of the opinion that the real audience for these discussions are those who read them but seldom post. That makes engaging and disengaging from BB discussions much easier.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I think most of the time we not only consider "Calvinism" to be only a part of Calvin's theology, but also his theology as refined and worked from Calvin until the response of Dort. There are questions that came about post-Calvin that are important to what we'd view as "Calvinism".

For a while the "Doctrines of Grace" was a common phrase around here. I don't know that it ever caught on.

 

[Reformed]

I think most of the time we not only consider "Calvinism" to be only a part of Calvin's theology, but also his theology as refined and worked from Calvin until the response of Dort. There are questions that came about post-Calvin that are important to what we'd view as "Calvinism".

For a while the "Doctrines of Grace" was a common phrase around here. I don't know that it ever caught on.

Charles Spurgeon must have been ahead of his time, as he viewed Calvinism as synonymous with the doctrines of grace. He saw the term's meaning as self-evident when used in a Baptist context. Truthfully, how many regulars on the BB do not know what is meant by Calvinism? Any Baptist who believes in infant baptism and Presbyterian ecclesiology is not a Baptist, so the use of the term among Baptists is just as narrow as Spurgeon's use of the word in the 19th-century.

 

[JonC]

Charles Spurgeon must have been ahead of his time, as he viewed Calvinism as synonymous with the doctrines of grace. He saw the term's meaning as self-evident when used in a Baptist context. Truthfully, how many regulars on the BB do not know what is meant by Calvinism? Any Baptist who believes in infant baptism and Presbyterian ecclesiology is not a Baptist, so the use of the term among Baptists is just as narrow as Spurgeon's use of the word in the 19th-century.

I think the confusion comes in when Baptists hold views apart from a Calvinistic (original use) origin. So much Reformed doctrine is assumed even by baptists who reject the five points. Even the Arminianism is indebted to Calvin.

So I could be called a "Calvinist" by some but my views mean I contextualize the issues differently.

This could be significant as more Baptists are "reforming" their Reformed views.

Otherwise I think we risk a false agreement.

 

[Yeshua1]

No.

What I have in common with Calvinists is that I believe men are completely unable to turn to God; for one to be saved God must draw that person (I believe that faith itself is of God). I believe that God chooses a people for His own out of fallen man. I believe that Christ died to save those who would believe. I believe that God’s purposes in salvation will be accomplished. And I believe in the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer.

But I do not believe in the doctrine of “original sin” in such a way that is held by many of a Calvinist trajectory. I do not believe that men must be regenerated or born again in order to believe. Instead I believe that human inability is a matter of the will. I also believe that the context through which Calvinism and Arminianism exists is flawed. I do not believe that the legal aspect is correct and this extends to how a Calvinist would hold certain points (e.g., depravity and what exactly was accomplished at the cross). I also disagree with the breakdown of soteriology into mini-"stand alone" components.

So while I can affirm the points my view of them (the "how") is different from a Calvinistic view.

So you would thus deny that the Fall made it impossible for sinful humans to believe on their own in Jesus to get saved then?

 

[Yeshua1]

No.

What I have in common with Calvinists is that I believe men are completely unable to turn to God; for one to be saved God must draw that person (I believe that faith itself is of God). I believe that God chooses a people for His own out of fallen man. I believe that Christ died to save those who would believe. I believe that God’s purposes in salvation will be accomplished. And I believe in the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer.

But I do not believe in the doctrine of “original sin” in such a way that is held by many of a Calvinist trajectory. I do not believe that men must be regenerated or born again in order to believe. Instead I believe that human inability is a matter of the will. I also believe that the context through which Calvinism and Arminianism exists is flawed. I do not believe that the legal aspect is correct and this extends to how a Calvinist would hold certain points (e.g., depravity and what exactly was accomplished at the cross). I also disagree with the breakdown of soteriology into mini-"stand alone" components.

So while I can affirm the points my view of them (the "how") is different from a Calvinistic view.

Do you hold to original Sin as affecting all humans with a sin nature, and thus Jesus had to be Virgin Born to bypass being effected by it?

 

[Yeshua1]

I think most of the time we not only consider "Calvinism" to be only a part of Calvin's theology, but also his theology as refined and worked from Calvin until the response of Dort. There are questions that came about post-Calvin that are important to what we'd view as "Calvinism".

For a while the "Doctrines of Grace" was a common phrase around here. I don't know that it ever caught on.

Doctrines of Grace is what most Calvinistic Baptists though would be in agreement with, not Presbyterian aspects of John Calvin, nor of Covenant theology proper!

 

[Yeshua1]

Charles Spurgeon must have been ahead of his time, as he viewed Calvinism as synonymous with the doctrines of grace. He saw the term's meaning as self-evident when used in a Baptist context. Truthfully, how many regulars on the BB do not know what is meant by Calvinism? Any Baptist who believes in infant baptism and Presbyterian ecclesiology is not a Baptist, so the use of the term among Baptists is just as narrow as Spurgeon's use of the word in the 19th-century.

Calvinism among Baptists circles would be excluding those things such as infant baptism, and also to the use of Confessions, as those holding to use of Confessions tend to hold to Covenant theology proper, save for the infant issue!

 

[JonC]

Do you hold to original Sin as affecting all humans with a sin nature, and thus Jesus had to be Virgin Born to bypass being effected by it?

Nope.

 

[Yeshua1]

Nope.

So Jesus was born with same sin nature that we all were?

 

[JonC]

So Jesus was born with same sin nature that we all were?

You already know that I believe Jesus had the same human nature we have.

What's with the questions like we've never discussed this before?

I believe sin a spiritual issue - not a genetic one.

 

[Yeshua1]

You already know that I believe Jesus had the same human nature we have.

What's with the questions like we've never discussed this before?

I believe sin a spiritual issue - not a genetic one.

 

[Yeshua1]

So he then would have a sinful nature...

 

[JonC]

So he then would have a sinful nature...

No. He would have a human nature. Unlike us He did not sin.

 

[Cavell]

Hello Cavell, I am a simple basic Christian who also loves Jn.3:16....so I am not sure what you mean by posting this fine verse.
. 16 for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

Maybe try highlighting God did so love the WORLD! The verse doesn't say for God so loved those in the world he had already elected.

 

[Yeshua1]

No. He would have a human nature. Unlike us He did not sin.

Do we have a sin nature?

 

[JonC]

Do we have a sin nature?

Go to the appropriate thread and re-read our conversation.

 

[InTheLight]

Maybe try highlighting God did so love the WORLD! The verse doesn't say for God so loved those in the world he had already elected.

Of course it doesn't. But Calvinists have their own definitions for Biblical words.

All: The elect
Draw all Men: Regenerate the Elect
Everyone: The elect
Whosoever: The elect
World: The elect

Mystery: The way God decrees sin but is not responsible for it.
Mystery (2): Any theological issue held to by Calvinists that contradicts scripture and they cannot explain.

As to John 3:16, the Calvinist's dictionary has this:

John 3:16: Enigmatic verse. One must be a scholar to properly understand this passage. James White’s unbiased insights are recommended.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Of course it doesn't. But Calvinists have their own definitions for Biblical words.

All: The elect
Draw all Men: Regenerate the Elect
Everyone: The elect
Whosoever: The elect
World: The elect

Mystery: The way God decrees sin but is not responsible for it.
Mystery (2): Any theological issue held to by Calvinists that contradicts scripture and they cannot explain.

As to John 3:16, the Calvinist's dictionary has this:

John 3:16: Enigmatic verse. One must be a scholar to properly understand this passage. James White’s unbiased insights are recommended.

Alright, exegete this verse...

He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.[John 1:10]

 

[SovereignGrace]

Of course it doesn't. But Calvinists have their own definitions for Biblical words.

All: The elect
Draw all Men: Regenerate the Elect
Everyone: The elect
Whosoever: The elect
World: The elect

Mystery: The way God decrees sin but is not responsible for it.
Mystery (2): Any theological issue held to by Calvinists that contradicts scripture and they cannot explain.

As to John 3:16, the Calvinist's dictionary has this:

John 3:16: Enigmatic verse. One must be a scholar to properly understand this passage. James White’s unbiased insights are recommended.

Alright, explain these two verses...

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.“[John 3:16]

I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours;[John 17:9]