Calvinist/Non-Calvinist - Where exactly am I?

[JonC]

And you have never been there...never wrestled with issues of doctrine and Gods plan is? PLEASE!!! The important thing though is that Christ promices to save any & all that believe in Him...so brother Jon, welcome to the wonderful world of Christianity...let the HS guide you & grow in the scriptures.

Thanks EW&F. It has been pointed out to me that the BB is not really the best place to explore or refine one’s views – kyredneck and p4t only verify that point. There are some here who cannot understand how someone can see a valid point in an opposing position, or how someone could entertain the notion a personally held understanding may be incomplete or even incorrect if held as an absolute.



I did not gain those beliefs which others describe as “Calvinistic” from studying Calvinism or from Calvinistic authors. While I am not straddling the fence on issues, I have not yielded my understanding of the Atonement to what many Calvinists would view as acceptable doctrine. In light of the Gospel of Christ the debate is, to me, a minor issue. So I understand how “sheep” from either camp would object to one who feels he belongs to neither.



But I have been reading this and BobRyan’s follow up thread which had been interesting. My intent was to learn how others would critique and classify my understanding so that I could more objectively evaluate my position. While firm in my belief on this topic, I do believe there is a benefit to re-examining one’s understanding against opposing views. There will always be kyrednecks and p4t’s – especially in antiquated debates such as this, but I think that all in all I have gained much to think about.

 

[kyredneck]

Forget 5 points and focus on one point:

Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration.

Monergism: the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.

Can you decide whether you are a Monergist or a Synergist?

Or would it be a Non-Monergist or a Non-Synergist?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Thanks EW&F. It has been pointed out to me that the BB is not really the best place to explore or refine one’s views – kyredneck and p4t only verify that point. There are some here who cannot understand how someone can see a valid point in an opposing position, or how someone could entertain the notion a personally held understanding may be incomplete or even incorrect if held as an absolute.



I did not gain those beliefs which others describe as “Calvinistic” from studying Calvinism or from Calvinistic authors. While I am not straddling the fence on issues, I have not yielded my understanding of the Atonement to what many Calvinists would view as acceptable doctrine. In light of the Gospel of Christ the debate is, to me, a minor issue. So I understand how “sheep” from either camp would object to one who feels he belongs to neither.



But I have been reading this and BobRyan’s follow up thread which had been interesting. My intent was to learn how others would critique and classify my understanding so that I could more objectively evaluate my position. While firm in my belief on this topic, I do believe there is a benefit to re-examining one’s understanding against opposing views. There will always be kyrednecks and p4t’s – especially in antiquated debates such as this, but I think that all in all I have gained much to think about.

I have done some rudimentry studies of the "Marrow of Modern Divinity" on line..... from WIKI as a explaination.....The Marrow Controversy was a Scottish ecclesiastical dispute occasioned by the republication in 1718 of The Marrow of Modern Divinity (originally published in two parts in London in 1645 and 1649 by "E. F.", generally believed to be a pseudonym for Edward Fisher, an English Calvinist lay theologian of the seventeenth century, belonging to the guild of barber surgeon; not to be confused with Edward Fisher, Esq.). The work consists of religious dialogues which discuss the doctrine of the atonement and aim to guide the reader safely between Antinomianism and Neonomianism.

However there is a book--see attached (some commentary by Sinclair Ferguson) that I fully intent to read (after Ive digested Martyn Lloyd Jones book on the Sermon on the Mount). You may want to explore this book for some answers.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1845504798/?tag=baptis04-20

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Here is some commentary sermons by Ferguson you may want to check out.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakerWithinSource=&subsetCat=&subsetItem=&mediatype=&includekeywords=&keyword=Dr.^Sinclair^B.^Ferguson&keyworddesc=Dr.+Sinclair+B.+Ferguson&currsection=sermonsspeaker&AudioOnly=false&SpeakerOnly=true&keywordwithin=marrow+controversy&x=0&y=0

 

[JonC]

Jon....unless the atonement is particular and effective, then we have really destroyed the unity and harmony of the Trinity. Is that what your attempting to do?

In terms of redemption, I agree. Where I disagree is that I see a purpose in Christ’s death for the non-elect (a valid opportunity which culminates in a valid condemnation). In BobRyan’s presentation of the Atonement this wouldn’t be an issue for me as it incorporates more than the death of Christ. I lean towards this presentation because I believe that Calvinists often err when they attempt to examine the death of Christ in micro-subsections.



The propitiation comments earlier are good examples. I believe that Christ is the propitiation for all human sin, but Christ died to redeem the elect. So I would answer the question “for whom did Christ die?” by saying that He died for mankind but specifically to redeem those who would believe.


So my answer to your question is “no.” It seems to me that many destroy the unity and harmony of the Trinity by objecting to a Christ-centered relationship (e.g., judgment/condemnation) towards the lost. I see the world as being condemned for rejecting the Light, which implies a situation where the Light was there to be rejected or received. I believe that all men are under this condemnation until such a time as they believe.

 

[JonC]

Using the term 'Calvinist' in a generic sense, if you hold to a 'general atonement' in lieu of a 'limited atonement' then that makes you at the very least a 'four point Calvinist'. Or would it be a 'one point Arminian'? Hmm, I guess I don't know what you are either.[/IMG]

:laugh:… I suspect neither – certainly not Arminian and probably not Calvinist.

Forget 5 points and focus on one point:

Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration.

Monergism: the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.

Can you decide whether you are a Monergist or a Synergist?
Or would it be a Non-Monergist or a Non-Synergist?

I do not believe that the human will cooperates with the Holy Spirit in the work of regeneration in such a way that salvation is dependent on the choice of our natural will. Likewise, I do not believe that the Holy Spirit works independently of human will in such a way that men are unwillingly saved. I believe that God works within the will of men to draw men unto Himself.

What are you – a Synergist who believes that regeneration is dependent on the will of man or a Monergist who believes that men are saved while actively rejecting that salvation?

 

[Reformed]

:laugh:… I suspect neither – certainly not Arminian and probably not Calvinist.

Jon, out of curiosity. Do you disagree with limited or definite atonement?

 

[kyredneck]

...certainly not Arminian...

You're sure?

I do not believe that the human will cooperates with the Holy Spirit in the work of regeneration in such a way that salvation is dependent on the choice of our natural will. Likewise, I do not believe that the Holy Spirit works independently of human will in such a way that men are unwillingly saved. I believe that God works within the will of men to draw men unto Himself.

Is this what you're trying to say?:

3.unaided by the Holy Spirit, no person is able to respond to God’s will

If so, that makes you a two point Arminian, or would it be a three point Calvinist? Ah heck, doesn't matter anyway, you can't even keep from mug wumping on only a single point, much less five.

What are you..

Unequivocally Monergist.

 

[kyredneck]

Thanks EW&F. It has been pointed out to me that the BB is not really the best place to explore or refine one’s views.....

'Iron sharpens iron'. Aggressive debate is effective to 'refine' the views of a bona fide student of the Word.

 

[Van]

The summary that I hold Christ died only for the elect is incorrect.

I believe that Christ died to save those who would believe. So yes, I do believe that Christ died and was resurrected to redeem only the elect. Those who will not believe are not numbered among the redeemed - they are not those who have the right to be called children of God.

But, I do believe in a general atonement. Christ death on the cross was not a value equal to the sins of the elect (I actually believe the “ledger” system to be a limited illustration). Instead, I believe that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. The rejection of Christ results in condemnation - this is a universal condemnation as we all live in rejection of Christ until we are saved by grace through faith.

Our views of the atonement do not seem, to me, very different. Perhaps this is the only similarity in our views.

If God chose the individuals He would save before creation, then why would Christ die to become the propitiation for the whole world? Calvinists sometimes make the double payment argument. Why would Christ die for the non-elect if they are going to be punished for their sins in the afterlife?

Now if we turn it around, it makes far better sense. If Christ died for the whole world, then the opportunity for salvation for the whole world has been provided. Thus anyone chosen by God and placed spiritually in Christ undergoes the circumcision of Christ, the sin burden is removed and the sinner is born anew, and rises in Christ a new creation, made alive together with Christ.

Thus when 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God chose you for salvation through the sanctification by the Holy Spirit, this refers to God setting you apart (sanctification) in Christ. But also through faith in the truth. We could not have faith in the truth before creation. Paul says we were saved by grace through faith, indicating our faith existed before we were saved. And if we are saved when God puts us in Christ, then we are individually chosen and saved when God puts us in Christ.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Jon, have you ever studied the Philadelphia Confession of faith and/or the 1689 Confessions?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

... situation where the Light was there to be rejected or received. I believe that all men are under this condemnation until such a time as they believe.

Yes there was a time.....our ancestors Adam & Eve, they were in the Light till they rejected God! Now all mankind is under that sin where we are condemned till we believe. But we differ in the method of that awaking belief.

Jon, If Christ died for all, dont you think all would be saved? What I hear you saying is that Jesus' death was not an actual atonement but only something that makes atonement possible. The atonement becomes actual when the sinner repents of their sin & believes on Jesus. Does that sum up your beliefs or is there something I am missing?

But I do believe that the value of Christs death is adequate to save all men and women in all ages of this world. However in my view, Christ did not die for all, but all for whom he died will be saved. Therefore it is my belief that His death was an actual atonement for the sins of those elect persons whom the Father previously has determined to give them.

 

[Yeshua1]

As a non-Cal....(and I read your post very carefully twice)...you are pretty much safely and decidedly in the "Calvinist" camp.

Here's the thing that gives it away irretrievably:


Yup...you are a Calvinist. Only a "Calvinist" would even use a term like "effectual grace". That's incurably Calvinist.
Similarly, only a Calvinist would say Christ died to save "those who would believe". That's "Limited Atonement".........there's no version of Soteriology on earth which affirms that except full-bore Calvinism.

If I may...(and this is not an attempt at insult)...but, this statement seems like sheer nonsense to me. Perhaps you merely worded it poorly?

Given your above quote anyway....this seems like sheer contradiction.

Can you clarify? (I do not mean to insult you....) This just seems like a contradiction. Either you truly affirm "Limited Atonement" or you don't.....if you DON'T, then praise God....you are B.B's only resident "AMYRALDIAN"!!!! how kewl would that be! I've never even KNOWN an actual Amyraldian. That would be kewl to have one........sorry (day-dreaming) can you clarify what you mean?

Did Christ "die" for everyone or "the elect" alone?........If you deny "Limited Atonement"...then you are our only resident Amyraldian (that I know of)..........how cool is That!!!

You make mention of your "non-Covenant" Theology, and your Eschatological pre-millennial pre-tribulational rapturism: I wouldn't sweat that, as those views are perfectly consistent with a SOTERIOLOGY of "Calvinism". One is "Eschatology" the other "Soteriology".

They are not contradictory. Granted....MOST hard-core "Calvies" are indeed non-dispy, and their "Covenant Theology" gives them sort of more pro-Calvinist argumentation than you might have.
Put differently, a "Covenant Theology" Calvinist has almost "MORE" reasons to believe in his Soteriology than a Dispensational one would have....
He has deeper pockets as it were.

"Covenant" Theology lends itself to "Calvinism" a little better than a Dispensational view does, but one can quite consistently be BOTH without problem.

That's my (non-Cal) two-cents........
but, yes....you appear to be----- no doubt---- a "Calvinist".

Embrace labels....I like labels. Be proud to be a Calvinist.:thumbs:

I also for awhile was in the A camp in regards to calvinism, but after reading all of the postings here, reading over theologies by different authors, and the bible, have come to see that if it was not a definite atonement provided for sinners by death of Jesus, its either a potential only, or Universalism logically left to camp in!

 

[JonC]

Jon, out of curiosity. Do you disagree with limited or definite atonement?

To be fair, it depends on who’s defining the atonement. While I believe that there is a potential aspect to Christ work on the cross, I also believe that its intent and effect in regards to redemption is limited to those who believe.



If redemption were taken as identical to atonement, then I would believe in limited or particular atonement. Personally I view sins as being atoned for, but people as being redeemed. It has been pointed out to me that it is inappropriate to separate atonement from redemption, which I can accept with the understanding that it is inappropriate to separate faith from redemption (and therefore, from atonement). But this also skews some people’s approach to the scope of the atonement (it has been spoken of as separate from faith but identical to redemption, which I view as inconsistent).

 

[Yeshua1]

To be fair, it depends on who’s defining the atonement. While I believe that there is a potential aspect to Christ work on the cross, I also believe that its intent and effect in regards to redemption is limited to those who believe.



If redemption were taken as identical to atonement, then I would believe in limited or particular atonement. Personally I view sins as being atoned for, but people as being redeemed. It has been pointed out to me that it is inappropriate to separate atonement from redemption, which I can accept with the understanding that it is inappropriate to separate faith from redemption (and therefore, from atonement). But this also skews some people’s approach to the scope of the atonement (it has been spoken of as separate from faith but identical to redemption, which I view as inconsistent).

Would you see it as being that the death of Christ was sufficient to save all sinners, but that God;s actual intent was to save by/thru it just His elect?

I keep coming bac to the intent issue, for IF God really desired all to get saved by the death of christ, and its His Will to have such happen, why can't it happen?

 

[Reformed]

To be fair, it depends on who’s defining the atonement. While I believe that there is a potential aspect to Christ work on the cross, I also believe that its intent and effect in regards to redemption is limited to those who believe.

Jon,

These two sentences are in contradiction to each other. If Christ's work on the cross has potential then its outcome has not been determined. That is the Amyraldian position. In the vernacular this would be described as 4 point Calvinism. Amyraldianism modified Calvinism's teachings on God's decree of universal redemption with no decree for reprobation (McKim).

 

[Yeshua1]

Jon,

These two sentences are in contradiction to each other. If Christ's work on the cross has potential then its outcome has not been determined. That is the Amyraldian position. In the vernacular this would be described as 4 point Calvinism. Amyraldianism modified Calvinism's teachings on God's decree of universal redemption with no decree for reprobation (McKim).

didn't Calvin himself thouigh seem to go back and forth between those 2 positions?

I was firmly in the potential provided for all to get saved, but still stuck with problem of what couldn't God actually save all those sinners if Jesus actually had died to satisfy to the Father all their sins?

 

[preacher4truth]

Jonc,

You are avoiding. You've specifically avoided me and that is well noted, as I have called you on things upfront, and as kyredneck has noted this calling out is both Scriptural and profitable. Tucking tail as you have here is unfortunate behavior, and is frankly timidity on your part. This isn't being spiritual, it is being a party spirit.

But you're still in hiding and won't respond. I find that behavior shameful on your part and less than what should be expected by men of God. Please don't excuse this behavior as 'being busy', or as avoiding division, as this is not the case, and, as you've attended to other posts since the former.

Others including myself have called you on your theological contradictions. I see you as one who is politicking, ESPECIALLY to the camp outside of Calvinism while POSING as a Calvinist yourself. I don't see you as even close to being a Monergist as your position is shaky and plays both sides, never settling opon truth.

It is noted that you are incapable of taking rebuke, reproof, and instruction, and are seemingly incapable of responding to being called on your contradictory theological position.

 

[Yeshua1]

Jonc,

You are avoiding. You've specifically avoided me and that is well noted, as I have called you on things upfront, and as kyredneck has noted this calling out is both Scriptural and profitable. Tucking tail as you have here is unfortunate behavior, and is frankly timidity on your part. This isn't being spiritual, it is being a party spirit.

But you're still in hiding and won't respond. I find that behavior shameful on your part and less than what should be expected by men of God. Please don't excuse this behavior as 'being busy', or as avoiding division, as this is not the case, and, as you've attended to other posts since the former.

Others including myself have called you on your theological contradictions. I see you as one who is politicking, ESPECIALLY to the camp outside of Calvinism while POSING as a Calvinist yourself. I don't see you as even close to being a Monergist as your position is shaky and plays both sides, never settling opon truth.

It is noted that you are incapable of taking rebuke, reproof, and instruction, and are seemingly incapable of responding to being called on your contradictory theological position.

i was where he seems to be at right now though, as had gone from being an evangelical arminian, to 4 pointer, to ow holding to all 5 points of the DoG, so lets just keep the discourse civil, and see if we can persuade form the scriptures our brother!

 

[JonC]

Yes there was a time.....our ancestors Adam & Eve, they were in the Light till they rejected God! Now all mankind is under that sin where we are condemned till we believe. But we differ in the method of that awaking belief.

I think that men, even today, are condemned because they love the darkness rather than the Light. I am not sure that we differ in the method of that awakening belief – I don’t really know your understanding. I believe that God draws men to Himself (here I believe Scripture is speaking of the elect). God works in the will of men so that they come to faith. I do realize that some believe that God regenerates men so that they believe, and if this is your position then we do differ in that I believe regeneration follows faith.

Jon, If Christ died for all, dont you think all would be saved.

No, I don’t think that all would be saved as I look at Christ as the atoning Sacrifice, and limit the atonement to speak specifically of His death alone (as a propitiation for the sins of man). Christ’s death as a propitiation for the sins of the whole world (literally) does not equate to the conclusion that all will be saved because we are saved by grace through faith. Singling out Christ’s death to such an extent is an exclusion of faith.



We may hold very similar views here – the difference may be that I am assuming a too narrow of an approach to the Atonement by strictly relating it to the work on the Cross rather than including the resurrection, redemption, and faith.

What I hear you saying is that Jesus' death was not an actual atonement but only something that makes atonement possible. The atonement becomes actual when the sinner repents of their sin & believes on Jesus. Does that sum up your beliefs or is there something I am missing?.

I don’t think that Christ’s death apart from faith constitutes salvation.



Do you see a difference between atonement and redemption (other than, of course, the subject of those terms)?