Dortian, not Calvinist

[Rippon]

BTW, thank you J.D. for all the legwork in gathering that exceptional information on the Doctrines of Grace .
I note the there are 6,760,000 entries. EdSutton,Webdog &Co. will have their work cut out for themselves in contacting all those sites with some angry email denouncing their usage of the Doctrines of Grace.

 

[Rippon]

Speaking of having "your work cut out for ya", I would like EdSutton to prove that Calvin's positions were quite different from that of the Canons of Dort. Some think that Theodore Beza single-handedly changed Calvinism from that held by John Calvin . Of course that's bogus. But I'd like Ed to substantiate his claim that the findings of Dort differed with that of the theology of John Calvin. Your assignment will be due on Monday.

 

[J.D.]

BTW, thank you J.D. for all the legwork in gathering that exceptional information on the Doctrines of Grace .
I note the there are 6,760,000 entries. EdSutton,Webdog &Co. will have their work cut out for themselves in contacting all those sites with some angry email denouncing their usage of the Doctrines of Grace.

No problem, Google makes it so easy. I've been surprised by Ed and Drfuss' reaction. It's the first time I've seen such objections. I don't blame them for feeling shorted over the terminology which they feel should not be used exclusively the way it is, but I assume they are not aware of how commonly it is used in this way.

The funny thing is that I often intentionally make inflammatory remarks just to get a rise out of someone, but this OP was one of the most academic, un-inflammatory posts I've ever made. You just never know what's going to set people off, do ya?

 

[Allan]

No problem, Google makes it so easy. I've been surprised by Ed and Drfuss' reaction. It's the first time I've seen such objections. I don't blame them for feeling shorted over the terminology which they feel should not be used exclusively the way it is, but I assume they are not aware of how commonly it is used in this way.

The funny thing is that I often intentionally make inflammatory remarks just to get a rise out of someone, but this OP was one of the most academic, un-inflammatory posts I've ever made. You just never know what's going to set people off, do ya?

In reading and reasearching a bunch of the Presbytarian works a few years ago, I noticed they would often refer at times to the doctrines of grace as the soveriegn grace doctrines. If you have noticed on the BB that is what I typcally will call them because I feel it emphasizes better the theological view of Soveriegn grace as opposed to the common doctrine OF God's grace(s). I have no problem with either name but personally if I was a Calvinist, I like 'soveriegn grace doctrines' better

 

[drfuss]

Allen writes:
"In reading and reasearching a bunch of the Presbytarian works a few years ago, I noticed they would often refer at times to the doctrines of grace as the soveriegn grace doctrines. If you have noticed on the BB that is what I typcally will call them because I feel it emphasizes better the theological view of Soveriegn grace as opposed to the common doctrine OF God's grace(s). I have no problem with either name but personally if I was a Calvinist, I like 'soveriegn grace doctrines' better "

drfuss: I also object to "sovereign grace doctrines". All Christians believe that God is completely soveriegn and His grace is free. The soveriegnty of God is no more applicable to Calvinists beliefs than to Non-Calvinists beliefs, but Calvinists just claim it is.

Why don't Calvinists use more discriptive terms like "irresistible grace" or "unconditional election"? Instead they choose to use deceptive terms.

It makes one wonder if, down through the years, Calvinism could only be defended using deceptive terms. Why don't the Calvinists of today cease using these deceptive terms.

Then Calvinists wonder why Non-Calvinists sometimes resent Calvinists.

 

[Rippon]

I have no problem with either name but personally if I was a Calvinist, I like 'soveriegn grace doctrines' better

A Calvinist could call his theology :"The Doctrines of Sovereign, Discriminating, Particular ,Efficacious , Glorious Grace" too , but " The Doctrine(s) of Grace" is just the more recognizable form of words used . It's shorthand --as is the word "Calvinism".

 

[Rippon]

Why don't Calvinists use more discriptive terms like "irresistible grace" or "unconditional election"? Instead they choose to use deceptive terms.

It makes one wonder if, down through the years, Calvinism could only be defended using deceptive terms. Why don't the Calvinists of today cease using these deceptive terms.

Then Calvinists wonder why Non-Calvinists sometimes resent Calvinists.

Calvinists don't want to use deceptive tactics . Misleading folks is not on our agenda.Terms like "Irresistible Grace" and "Limited Atonement" aren't used much these days by most Calvinists. We don't use them anymore because they are deceptive -- but because they convey the wrong idea upon reflection. So most of "us" use "Effectual Calling" and "Particular (or Definite) Redemption".

You know someone once said :"The stronger the words , the weaker the argument." Oh, that's your tagline ! Imagine that !

 

[drfuss]

Rippon writes:
"You know someone once said :"The stronger the words , the weaker the argument." Oh, that's your tagline ! Imagine that !"

Drfuss: Yes, my tagline does apply here. The stronger the words (or deception), the weaker the augument. So we agree. Thank you.

 

[Rippon]

Drfuss: Yes, my tagline does apply here. The stronger the words (or deception), the weaker the augument. So we agree. Thank you.

Please inform your weaker brothers in the Lord in what ways we are , and have been, deceptive.I think our views are rather straightforward. People who hide behind charges of deception are not known as being direct.You need to spell things out .

 

[Havensdad]

drfuss: I also object to "sovereign grace doctrines". All Christians believe that God is completely soveriegn and His grace is free. The soveriegnty of God is no more applicable to Calvinists beliefs than to Non-Calvinists beliefs, but Calvinists just claim it is.

REALLY? I didn't know that! So, people who believe in "free will" think that salvation is TOTALLY because of God's grace?

Did God choose you, or did you choose God, FIRST? That is the issue.

If YOU chose GOD, with an equal playing field (spiritually speaking) with the rest of the world, then salvation is due to God's grace AND your prudent choice/wisdom/desire to do Good.

Only those who say we bring NOTHING to the table,( not our choice, not our obedience to "keep" salvation> NOTHING), have a RIGHT to the name "Doctrines of Grace".

Denial of Perseverance can be called "Doctrine of Works", perhaps?
Denial of Unconditional Election can be called "Doctrine of Human wisdom" or "Doctrine of Prudence", maybe?

But NOT "Doctrines of Grace".

Don't like it? Then fix your man centered theology.

 

[webdog]

REALLY? I didn't know that! So, people who believe in "free will" think that salvation is TOTALLY because of God's grace?

Clearly you don't know the non cal position too well. It is by grace we are saved THROUGH faith. Absolutely those who believe in "free will" confess salvation from God alone.

Did God choose you, or did you choose God, FIRST? That is the issue.

Choose for what

If YOU chose GOD, with an equal playing field (spiritually speaking) with the rest of the world, then salvation is due to God's grace AND your prudent choice/wisdom/desire to do Good.

According to you...not the Bible.

Only those who say we bring NOTHING to the table,( not our choice, not our obedience to "keep" salvation> NOTHING), have a RIGHT to the name "Doctrines of Grace".

If you bring nothing to the table...you haven't brought faith? I would hope so!

Denial of Perseverance can be called "Doctrine of Works", perhaps?

Why? I see Perseverance as BEING a doctrine of works, like our arminian brethern!

Denial of Unconditional Election can be called "Doctrine of Human wisdom" or "Doctrine of Prudence", maybe?

You can just call that one "non biblical"

Don't like it? Then fix your man centered theology.

This strawman is sooooooooooo played out here, you "robot" :laugh:

 

[Jerome]

"We hold and maintain the truths generally known as "the doctrines of grace." The Electing Love of God the Father, the Propitiatory and Substitutionary Sacrifice of his Son, Jesus Christ, Regeneration by the Holy Ghost, the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, the Justification of the sinner (once for all) by faith, his walk in newness of life and growth in grace by the active indwelling of the Holy Ghost, and the Priestly Intercession of our Lord Jesus, as also the hopeless perdition of all who reject the Savior, according to the words of the Lord in Matthew 25:46, "These shall go away into eternal punishment,"—are, in our judgment, revealed and fundamental truths."
---from a statement of faith signed by Charles Spurgeon, c. 1890.

 

[webdog]

I hold to everything Spurgeon mentioned, therefore I hold to the "doctrines of grace". I wish this would put an end to the calvinists' claim to solely abide by the "doctrines of grace".

 

[Rippon]

I hold to everything Spurgeon mentioned, therefore I hold to the "doctrines of grace". I wish this would put an end to the calvinists' claim to solely abide by the "doctrines of grace".

Do you hold to the Electing Love of God the Father?

 

[drfuss]

Please inform your weaker brothers in the Lord in what ways we are , and have been, deceptive.I think our views are rather straightforward. People who hide behind charges of deception are not known as being direct.You need to spell things out .

Drfuss: See my post #45.

I guess I will have to state it again. Using the term "doctrines of grace" to describe only Calvinism is deceptive in that it implies that Non-Calvinists do not believe in God's grace. Using terms like "sovereign grace" to describe only Calvinism is also deceptive since all Christians believe in God's sovereign grace.

Why don't Calvinists use terms to describe Calvinism that indicate a real difference with Non-Calvinists beliefs? Again, see Post #45.

IMO, only if you refuse to appreciate Non-Calvinists views, will you think these terms are not deceptive.

 

[Rippon]

I do not think your idea of the range of God's Sovereignty is as extensive as that to which which Calvinists hold. In the domain of Non-Calvinism certain boundaries are constructed wherein God does not have full authority.

 

[Rippon]

Drfuss , I think the word "Grace" has acquired a different meaning from that to which Calvinists hold. Calvinists hold to the idea of Grace that Christ and the Apostles taught .

Also , the doctrine of Election is quite different in the realm of Non-Calvinism. Many N-C's here have said that Election in the Bible has nothing to do with salvation -- they usually redefine the word as meaning election to service.

Romans 9 is kind of a litmus test to see how folks respond to Holy Writ when it comes to God's Sovereignty. Many N-C's claim that that chapter has nothing to do with salvation -- just temporal benefits ,despite verses 16,18,22, and 23 for example.That represents a clear parting of the ways between the two parties.

 

[webdog]

Do you hold to the Electing Love of God the Father?

Why wouldn't I?

 

[Rippon]

Why wouldn't I?

[ Said in answer to my query:"Do you hold to the Electing Love of God the Father?"]

Is the word "election" ( and sister words 'elect' , 'electing' , 'chose', 'chosen' )in Scripture referencing election to salvation ?

 

[webdog]

[ Said in answer to my query:"Do you hold to the Electing Love of God the Father?"]

Is the word "election" ( and sister words 'elect' , 'electing' , 'chose', 'chosen' )in Scripture referencing election to salvation ?

context determines how that word is used. It is used in reference to salvation, but with the qualifier 'through faith'.