Every knee shall bow and tongue confess

[DHK]

I'd be utterly THRILLED to label them as Arminians. Utterly THRILLED. What a blessing it would be to be able to label them Arminians- which is what they really are.

But they won't accept it.

So give me a name for their theology- and I will start calling them that.

But so long as their theology remains nameless- that is what I am going to call it- nameless.

Very few here, including myself, want to be labeled as Arminian, since we are not. The label is "non-Cal." There is no need to try to put a person in a box that follows some man's theology.
You say you are a Calvinist. In reality most of the Calvinists on this board disagree with you, so what kind of Calvinist are you? Your beliefs, some of them, differ from Calvin himself. So you have a nameless theology as well, since you differ from Calvin. Please explain, by name what you are, since you are not a true Calvinist. You don't believe John 3:16 according to the beliefs of Calvin, and I am sure that there is a whole lot more that you and Calvin disagree on. Therefore since you are not a "true Calvinist" what kind of "nameless theology" do you hold to? Remember most Calvinists here disagree with you.

 

[asterisktom]

Very few here, including myself, want to be labeled as Arminian, since we are not. The label is "non-Cal." There is no need to try to put a person in a box that follows some man's theology.

BTW, may I mention this as an aside? (I almost typed "asnide" - not my intention!)

I agree with your last sentence, about affixing human names with people's theology. But that works for those who are called Calvinist also (which is what I would be called). I believe that both "Arminian" and "Calvinist" are improper names to use.
1. For the reason you mentioned about putting people in a man-made box, with all its implications.
2. The other reason is that I don't believe Christians should put any person's name to a belief that, rightly or wrongly, they believe is scriptural.
3. These names are, with very rare exceptions, too simplistic to be functional. In my case, there are plenty of things that I disagree with Calvin about.

Just something to think about. I realize that I myself have used the term "Arminian", but I am now going to do my best to avoid it for the above reasons.

 

[webdog]

Sine I'm neither a cal or arm, call me a Kimbleist. DR. kimble was accused of killing his wife but claimed the "one arm man" (non arm) did it. Diet theology (no calories) works too.

 

[asterisktom]

Sine I'm neither a cal or arm, call me a Kimbleist. DR. kimble was accused of killing his wife but claimed the "one arm man" (non arm) did it. Diet theology (no calories) works too.

I assume we are not talking of Diet of Worms, are we? :tongue3:

I had a friend who insisted with a straight face that he was a Calvin-Hobbesian.

 

[DHK]

BTW, may I mention this as an aside? (I almost typed "asnide" - not my intention!)

I agree with your last sentence, about affixing human names with people's theology. But that works for those who are called Calvinist also (which is what I would be called). I believe that both "Arminian" and "Calvinist" are improper names to use.
1. For the reason you mentioned about putting people in a man-made box, with all its implications.
2. The other reason is that I don't believe Christians should put any person's name to a belief that, rightly or wrongly, they believe is scriptural.
3. These names are, with very rare exceptions, too simplistic to be functional. In my case, there are plenty of things that I disagree with Calvin about.

Just something to think about. I realize that I myself have used the term "Arminian", but I am now going to do my best to avoid it for the above reasons.

Thank you. That attitude would be much appreciated.

 

[Skandelon]

Let's try an analogy. When the Bible says, 'No one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit' (1Cor 12:3), I should have thought it was obvious that it does not mean that the words are literally impossible to say unless the Holy Spirit permits. It means, in context, that no one can say and mean that Jesus is Lord. If you put a gun to the head of the average atheist and tell him to say Jesus is Lord or you'll blow his brains out, the chances are that he will say the words to save his life. So 1Cor 12:3 is not to be taken absolutely literally.

Are you with me so far?

Yes, and I agree. There is a difference in forcing someone to say something they don't mean and someone who really means it. I just believe that when the bible speaks of every knee bowing and every tongue confessing that it means they all mean it, otherwise I think it would indicate that some don't mean it.

When the Lord Jesus returns in glory, 'Every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him, and all the nations of the earth will mourn because of Him' (Rev 1:7). They will not see our Lord as He is depicted in Isaiah 53:2-3, but as He will be in Rev 19:11ff. There will be no faith required to know that Jesus is Lord; it will be breathtakingly obvious. It will be the worst nightmare come true for those who have not believed, which is why they will 'mourn.'

I agree. I said as much earlier when I spoke of those who don't confess by faith, but from sight.

They will not require the Holy Spirit to say, and mean, Jesus is Lord, because they will have the evidence of their own eyes.

Agreed. But for the Calvinist, even those who did see (Thomas) or whoever, needed to be regenerated prior to coming to saving faith, right? Or was the sight all they needed? Are outward signs sufficient IOW?

I'm sorry if this is pathetically obvious, but you appear from your posts not to understand it.

Steve

No, I think we are in agreement for the most part. The issue is that you appear to believe that outward signs (sight) can lead to true confession of Christ as Lord. I have always agreed with that, but do Calvinists believe that if enough outward evidence is shown to them (miracles etc) that they might confess Christ as Lord without first being regenerated?

 

[TomVols]

I had a friend who insisted with a straight face that he was a Calvin-Hobbesian.

That's my kind of religion! :laugh:

Seriously, I think most of us would be more Calvinistic and some would be less Calvinistic. That is what Paige Patterson thinks, anyway. Therefore, it must be true :laugh:

Edited to add:
Two ancedotes: in one class I lectured, a young lady referred to the Diet of Worms (pronouncing it with a W instead of the "V") and was clearly grossing people out in the class. I just couldn't stop myself....I let her go on and on. Oh, I felt bad about it later.......years later

I was at SBTS in 1995 when Calvin and Hobbes stopped running in dailies. Dr. Mohler wrote an editorial in the campus newsletter entitled "Calvin and Hobbes." The less-Calvinistic among us foamed and fumed at the title, assuming he was taking another theological podium when he really was talking about the end of Calvin and Hobbes and so forth. It was amusing.

I guess you just had to be there...for both.

 

[Luke2427]

First, can we please drop the attitude? Try avoiding taking jabs. Let's just discuss the subject. Ok?

Likewise.

The only distinction I can recall is that you think God permits that which he has determined. You never seem to explain any situation where God only permissively decrees something and on the other hand actively decrees something else. Do you see my point?

See God's devil for further exposition on this matter.

But it only takes one commentary on one verse to prove what Calvin believe on that one subject, Luke. I could have quoted his commentary on 2 Peter 3:9 or a few other verses as well to show you where you differ.

I do not disagree with Calvin about this subject as I have stated the very day you wrote this.

I do agree that God has a general love for mankind.

I simply disagree that "kosmos" in John 3:16 is speaking of every single person on earth- because it almost NEVER means that in any context.

And that is fine. You can disagree with Calvin on as many points as you want to Luke. I disagree with him on a lot of points too. I was just showing you how you "out-Calvin, John Calvin" on one important subject: God's love and desire for every individual in the world to be saved. Why you are trying to down play that very important point is pretty obvious to anyone following along.

I am probably ever so slightly harder than Calvin on some of these issues. But not as hard as you are trying to make it. I probably agree with Beza more than Calvin.

But I am not, as you seem to be trying to paint me, a fringe Calvinist by any means.

My beliefs are very consistent with historic mainstream Calvinism.

It's not meaningless to those you continually referred to as "you people" and accused of having a "nameless theology" because our individual views don't perfectly align with a historical namesake. How does it feel to be apart of the nameless crowd Luke? We are no more "nameless" than you are. We all disagree on some points with those "labels" you are trying to pin on us, but instead of treating us with respect and dealing with our arguments you attack us as being "nameless." Why? For the same reason that you have stated here, "NOBODY agrees with ANYBODY about everything."

Skandelon, these people do not WANT your Arminianism. That is what I cannot seem to get you to understand.

They do NOT HAVE A NAME FOR WHAT THEY BELEIVE- PERIOD.

If you call them Arminians- which is what you and I both know that they are most like- they will lash out at you.

They proudly admit, as Allan did a few days ago, that they have no name for what they believe. It is not systematized. It is an ecclectic hodge podge of doctrines.

It is not what you believe. Don't you call yourself a Classical Arminian?

I say GOOD FOR YOU! But they do not call themselves this. They reject the title vehemently.

I WISH they would own it. Until they systematize what they believe and call it something debating them is like nailing jello to a wall.

And until they do I will call them "these people" or "these nameless theology folks" because that is what best describes them, it is, in fact, the ONLY way you can sensibly describe them, at this time.

"Non-cal" doesn't cut it. Muslims are non-cal. Mormons are non-cal. Atheists are "non-cal".

Why? Maybe because they don't agree with Arminius about everything and some of the other people throughout history who are closer to what they believe aren't known. Or maybe they take the scripture to heart where Paul writes:

11 My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas "; still another, "I follow Christ." 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 1 Cor.

You can court these people all you want for whatever motive you have(I assume since you are the ONLY Arminian on baptistboard you are trying to build a constituency), but facts are facts.

And that passage has NOTHING to do with what we are talking about.

How about you write to them with the respect and love that Paul wrote to the Corinthians, who he was attempting to correct and who he disagreed with on many points. He called them "brethren, beloved of the Lord." That is a good name.

Do you mean in the same letter when he called them carnal about a half dozen times and threatened to come to them with a rod?

Are you reading the same Bible I am????

 

[glfredrick]

Very few here, including myself, want to be labeled as Arminian, since we are not. The label is "non-Cal." There is no need to try to put a person in a box that follows some man's theology.
You say you are a Calvinist. In reality most of the Calvinists on this board disagree with you, so what kind of Calvinist are you? Your beliefs, some of them, differ from Calvin himself. So you have a nameless theology as well, since you differ from Calvin. Please explain, by name what you are, since you are not a true Calvinist. You don't believe John 3:16 according to the beliefs of Calvin, and I am sure that there is a whole lot more that you and Calvin disagree on. Therefore since you are not a "true Calvinist" what kind of "nameless theology" do you hold to? Remember most Calvinists here disagree with you.

Dude... AGAIN... Calvinism is NOT following Calvin.

Calvinism is the name of a particular theological position that includes the categories of Supralapsarian and Infralapsarian soteriology. The TULIP of Calvinism came long after Calvin was safely in eternity with the Lord, and it was a response to the anthropologically-centered theology of Jacob Arminius via the Remonstrance.

You are an important figure on this board as a moderator/administrator. At least you should have your facts right as you go about your business policing posts on this board. No excuse for ignorance in this case, as it has been played out ad nausem.

 

[glfredrick]

Yes, and I agree. There is a difference in forcing someone to say something they don't mean and someone who really means it. I just believe that when the bible speaks of every knee bowing and every tongue confessing that it means they all mean it, otherwise I think it would indicate that some don't mean it.

Of course they will mean it! They will be FACE-TO-FACE with Almighty God. They will, rightly and clearly, understand what we can only know by faith right now. But secondarily to their "meaning it..." is the issue of timing. There is but one death, then the judgment. (Heb 9:27). They are "post-death" whether by actual physical death or by the Day of the Lord.

Unless, of course, you hold a position that allows for post-mortem evangelism...

I agree. I said as much earlier when I spoke of those who don't confess by faith, but from sight.

We all confess by faith right now -- those that confess truly, by the power of the Holy Spirit anyway -- contra those who confess in a religious sense from pure human capacity.

Agreed. But for the Calvinist, even those who did see (Thomas) or whoever, needed to be regenerated prior to coming to saving faith, right? Or was the sight all they needed? Are outward signs sufficient IOW?

They did... Which brings up an interesting question. When DID the Apostles become actually "born-again-from-above?"

No, I think we are in agreement for the most part. The issue is that you appear to believe that outward signs (sight) can lead to true confession of Christ as Lord. I have always agreed with that, but do Calvinists believe that if enough outward evidence is shown to them (miracles etc) that they might confess Christ as Lord without first being regenerated?

Actual sight CAN lead to a confession, but faith is also involved. Hence Thomas, Abraham, Moses, Paul, etc., all of whom had some theophany or sight-type experience with God that went beyond the norm. Regeneration still occurred in each case, otherwise they would not be counted among the righteous.

We look forward to the day when our "faith becomes sight..." and we see clearly. That will be both an awesome and a terrifying day as we come to realize just who Almighty God is -- and with that, our true sinful state. I suspect that those who make it into God's presence in a salvific manner that formerly held anthropocentric doctrines will understand very clearly at that point just how sovereign God really is.

I also suspect that our lack of understanding the concept of "king" in any personal context (in this case, I'm speaking of a sovereign human ruler who can at will do whatever pleases him, including uttering the words, "off with his head," with no repercussions save from the true King, God). We've "evolved" in our theology with the demise of kingdoms into a rebellious people that think that we have a say in how life happens. I suspect that earlier eras of people had no such illusion concerning the right and ability of a sovereign king do do with them as he pleased.

 

[Skandelon]

See God's devil for further exposition on this matter.

I've been following that thread but don't remember an answer to this point. Can you point me to the post where you distinguish between what God permissively decrees versus something he active decrees (through "positive agency")?

I simply disagree that "kosmos" in John 3:16 is speaking of every single person on earth- because it almost NEVER means that in any context.

Typically the only reason anyone would attempt to interpret John 3:16 or 2 Peter 3:9 not to mean "everyone" is because they don't believe God is expressing His love and desire for all to come to salvation (only the elect), but it sounds like to me you interpret these verses as God only loving and desiring the elect to be saved while still believing that God does love all mankind and desires them all to be saved, is that correct?

IOW, you agree with Calvin and most of us in that God loves all mankind and wants them to be saved, but you think these verses aren't saying that. You think they mean God loves the elect and wants only them to be saved, right? I'm really just trying to figure out your view.

I am probably ever so slightly harder than Calvin on some of these issues. But not as hard as you are trying to make it. I probably agree with Beza more than Calvin.

And that is fine. You can believe whatever God wants you to believe

But I am not, as you seem to be trying to paint me, a fringe Calvinist by any means.

I'm not trying to paint you as a "fringe" Calvinist. I'm trying to show you that you don't perfectly align with Calvin and thus some, by your standards, could label you "nameless." My point is that people typically don't like labels because they don't correctly represent all they understand and believe. I allow the label Arminian because of simplicity, but I don't align with Arminius on several points. Plus, there is that verse I quoted from Paul warning against such things...that alone should be enough.

My beliefs are very consistent with historic mainstream Calvinism.

That may be so, but your terminology is harsh and not used with care IMO. That is why I highlighted that part of the article. I really think that is important when talking about the culpability of God.

Skandelon, these people do not WANT your Arminianism. That is what I cannot seem to get you to understand.

I don't mean this as an insult, but your wording here proves my point above. You are very careless with words. You sound like one of the racist in the 50s that kept using the term "you people" to refer to blacks. WAIT...I know you aren't racist, so please don't overreact, I'm only saying that bigotry can apply to the way you view any group (even a theologically different group than you).

You like to paint us all with one big brush because then it is easier for you to attack us and dismiss us. Frankly, this is an uneducated and crude way to approach a disagreement. We are all individuals, not one of us alike. We all have different journeys and differing views on differing subjects. Which, I think you know, is true of the Calvinists here as well.

Why not deal with each individual with the love and respect of a fellow brother/sister in the Lord? Why call names and make baseless accusations? Just deal with their views and ideas as they relate to scripture honestly and objectively. That is all anyone really wants.

I WISH they would own it. Until they systematize what they believe and call it something debating them is like nailing jello to a wall.

What is really ironic about this statement is that I supposedly know the name of what you believe and I can't think of a more apt way to describe my experience in debating you. I think a label only confuses things because my form of Calvinism was much more like Archangels than yours (less deterministic), so you and I talk right past each other sometimes. This is why labels aren't always good.

"Non-cal" doesn't cut it. Muslims are non-cal. Mormons are non-cal. Atheists are "non-cal"

I think we all understand we are Christians here, so this reason is ridiculous. Non-Cal simply connotes the idea that they reject the concept of God selecting to effectually save a few people to the neglect of the rest.

And that passage has NOTHING to do with what we are talking about.

Oh, then could you explain how it doesn't relate to the concept of you saying I am Calvinist (of Calvin) and expecting others to say I'm an Arminian (of Arminius)? How in the world can you possible think that verse wouldn't apply to our situation? Because we put 'ist" and "ian" at the end of their names?

Do you mean in the same letter when he called them carnal about a half dozen times and threatened to come to them with a rod?

Are you reading the same Bible I am????

Yes, I think we are reading the same Bible, but through different lenses. I hear Paul speaking truth in love, with gentle firm care and desire to restore them to fellowship. You apparently see him as a rude, name calling bully?

I guess it is all perspective.

 

[webdog]

"Non-cal" doesn't cut it. Muslims are non-cal. Mormons are non-cal. Atheists are "non-cal"

hyper-cal's are non-cal's :laugh:

 

[DHK]

Dude... AGAIN... Calvinism is NOT following Calvin.

Calvinism is the name of a particular theological position that includes the categories of Supralapsarian and Infralapsarian soteriology. The TULIP of Calvinism came long after Calvin was safely in eternity with the Lord, and it was a response to the anthropologically-centered theology of Jacob Arminius via the Remonstrance.

You are an important figure on this board as a moderator/administrator. At least you should have your facts right as you go about your business policing posts on this board. No excuse for ignorance in this case, as it has been played out ad nausem.

I do have my facts straight. And I am tired of fighting this fight. Now I have to fight your fight too? Get with it! Your going to tell me that only the "Frederick-brand-Calvinism" is the true brand of Calvinism because only you agree with the true form of Calvinism; the real DOG, as found in the Bible, and all that disagree with you are not "true Calvinists." I am tired of fighting these petty fights. Why are you bringing this up? I am ready to start giving infractions to those who continue this petty quarreling.

You are like little children:
I am the true Calvinist.
No, I am the true Calvinist.
You are not a Calvinist at all.

 

[glfredrick]

I do have my facts straight. And I am tired of fighting this fight. Now I have to fight your fight too? Get with it! Your going to tell me that only the "Frederick-brand-Calvinism" is the true brand of Calvinism because only you agree with the true form of Calvinism; the real DOG, as found in the Bible, and all that disagree with you are not "true Calvinists." I am tired of fighting these petty fights. Why are you bringing this up? I am ready to start giving infractions to those who continue this petty quarreling.

You are like little children:
I am the true Calvinist.
No, I am the true Calvinist.
You are not a Calvinist at all.

No sir... I don't give a whit about my own theology, form of Calvinism, etc., for the sake of this issue. You are making a FACTUAL error in how you describe Calvinism at its core level. It is NOT based totally in following John Calvin any more than Arminianism is totally based in following Jacob Arminius, any more than Lutheranism is totally based on following Martin Luther, any more than Catholicism is totally based in following any given pope in history.

I am merely asking you to get your facts straight about what Calvinism IS and from where it stems, not the doctrines it holds, which as you allude are often interpretations as is your own theology.

From a source that I generally don't use, except in this case it is so succinct:

Calvinism (also called Reformed tradition, the Reformed faith, or Reformed theology) is a Protestant theological system and an approach to the Christian life.[1] The Reformed tradition was advanced by several theologians such as Martin Bucer, Heinrich Bullinger, Peter Martyr Vermigli, and Huldrych Zwingli, but this branch of Christianity bears the name of the French reformer John Calvin (Jean Cauvin in Old French) because of his prominent influence on it and because of his role in the confessional and ecclesiastical debates throughout the 16th century. Today, this term also refers to the doctrines and practices of the Reformed churches of which Calvin was an early leader. Less commonly, it can refer to the individual teaching of Calvin himself.[2] The system is often summarized in the Five Points of Calvinism and is best known for its doctrines of predestination and total depravity, stressing the absolute sovereignty of God.

Another source that sums up Calvinism well:

It is important to note that the later history of Calvinism has often been obscured by a failure to distinguish between Calvinism as the beliefs of Calvin himself; the beliefs of his followers, who, though striving to be faithful to Calvin, modified his teachings to meet their own needs; and, more loosely, the beliefs of the Reformed tradition of Protestant Christianity, in which Calvinism proper was only one, if historically the most prominent, strand. The Reformed churches consisted originally of a group of non-Lutheran Protestant churches in towns in Switzerland and southern Germany. These churches have always been jealous of their autonomy and individuality, and Geneva was not alone among them in having a distinguished theological leadership. Huldrych Zwingli and Heinrich Bullinger in Zürich and Martin Bucer in Strasbourg were also influential throughout Europe. Their teachings, especially in England, combined with those of Calvin to shape what came to be called Calvinism.

 

[DHK]

I am merely asking you to get your facts straight about what Calvinism IS and from where it stems, not the doctrines it holds, which as you allude are often interpretations as is your own theology.

Look, I can debate the issue also that Baptists are the only true Christians that date all the way back to the Apostles. But I am sure you don't want that debate. This is not the place for it.
There are as many forms of Calvinism as there are pigs in a market. Choose your favorite breed, and be satisfied with it. There is no need to try to put every one in a man-made box and put a so-called affixed label on them. I also can say that my theology is straight from the Bible, therefore Biblical theology, and apart from any man-made theology like Calvin. I don't want this argument. As I warned before, keep it up and I will start giving infractions for it. You are derailing this thread by doing so. Go and study the OP.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Originally Posted by wikipedia
Calvinism (also called Reformed tradition, the Reformed faith, or Reformed theology) is a Protestant theological system and an approach to the Christian life.[1] The Reformed tradition was advanced by several theologians such as Martin Bucer, Heinrich Bullinger, Peter Martyr Vermigli, and Huldrych Zwingli, but this branch of Christianity bears the name of the French reformer John Calvin (Jean Cauvin in Old French) because of his prominent influence on it and because of his role in the confessional and ecclesiastical debates throughout the 16th century. Today, this term also refers to the doctrines and practices of the Reformed churches of which Calvin was an early leader. Less commonly, it can refer to the individual teaching of Calvin himself.[2] The system is often summarized in the Five Points of Calvinism and is best known for its doctrines of predestination and total depravity, stressing the absolute sovereignty of God.

That is exactly right. I disagree with Calvin on a ton of stuff, most notably on baptism and ecclesiology, but nontheless, I am a calvinist because I hold to the Five Points, which were actually formulated 50 or so years after Calvin's death. And Bucer and Bullinger were Calvinists while Calvin was still studying to be a R.C. priest.

 

[JesusFan]

That is exactly right. I disagree with Calvin on a ton of stuff, most notably on baptism and ecclesiology, but nontheless, I am a calvinist because I hold to the Five Points, which were actually formulated 50 or so years after Calvin's death. And Bucer and Bullinger were Calvinists while Calvin was still studying to be a R.C. priest.

So only those who hold to all 5 points are 'real" calvinists than?
What about '4 pointers?"

 

[DHK]

This thread will be closed.
It has strayed far from the OP.