I Would Like to Opine Regarding Calvinism that...

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Not me!

(Hides his rubber ducky tube so no one will know.)

 

What Larry said.

I'll also add to the "regeneration before faith" discussion that it should not be overlooked that the ordo salutis is logical, not temporal. Logically, it could be argued that regeneration preceeds faith (unless the Spirit was wrong when He gave Paul 1 Corinthians 12:3). But that doesn't mean we'll see, feel, or know what happens first at conversion. People are so anthropocentric in their soteriology that it is scary.

Few are the people who, upon their conversion will say, "Wow...so this is what if feels like to be justified. Good thing I had faith. Even better thing that the Spirit of God worked in me to bring about that faith." But that doesn't mean it didn't happen that way.

 

Skypair, sounds to me like you've been on a forum that holds to the "Gospel Standard" confession. I often visit 5solas.com for some learning and some intertainment.

We all know that hypercalvinists are out there. Most of us C's know what they teach too. You speak as if we more "regular" C's have some dark hidden agenda and the "hypers" are revealing it. Not true.

Some of the things you've listed in your second post misrepresent even the hypercalvinist position. Pastor Larry has answered the points well.

 

This is what reformed baptists believe:

http://www.vor.org/truth/refbapt.html

We are calvinists because we agree with his doctrines from scripture.

 

==I must say that I have never seen a "classical" Calvinist confess the beliefs you outlined in either one of your posts. And before you say that I don't know what I am talking about, or something like that, I spend alot of time studying church history, historical theology, and reformed theology. Now there maybe some self proclaimed "Calvinists" who believe the things you outlined but they would be in the minority. Btw, can you give the names of mainstream, classical Calvinists who believe the things you outlined? Names and biographical information would be best.

I see from your public profile that you attend Bellevue Baptist. I must assume this is the church that was pastored by the late Adrian Rodgers? If this is the case I would like to say two things. (1) Adrian Rodgers was "generally" a great preacher. I have many of his sermons on CD (etc). (2) Adrian Rodgers, like Falwell, Vines, Graham, Caner, and others, had a poor understanding of the doctrines of Calvinism. His sermon(s) on this issue were some of his worst. Often these men misrepresent, misunderstand, over-simplify, and just generally get Calvinism wrong. So if your Bellevue is the Bellevue I am thinking of I am not all that surprised at your posts.

You said:
1) Some kind of salvation for infants through baptism (like RCC),

What Calvinist believes in baptismal salvation?


2) regeneration/indwelling by the Spirit BEFORE faith ( thus enabling one to believe),

What Calvinist believes that the Holy Spirit indwells lost people?

3) claims that we can do nothing to be saved (going even so far as to imply fate vs. free will in every event that happens in this world. Makes me wonder whether we are "able" do anything about any situation we face in life.),

You can't do anything to be saved. Salvation is by grace through faith apart from works, so that no man may boast (Eph 2:8-9, Rom 4:4-5, Jn 3:14-18, etc). As for daily life you can do what you want, but your "want" is ensalved to someone. Either the devil and sin (if you are lost) or God (if you are saved). No human has total free-will. As for salvation it was Jesus who said that "ALL" that the Father gives Him "WILL" come to Him (Jn 6:37-39, 10:26-31, 17:1-3). There is such thing as "election", and there is nothing hap-hazard (sp?) about it either. Election is based on God's will, plan, and purpose. Those He has elected "will" come to Christ (period).


4) decry that a "decision" we make following belief in the gospel saves us (in fact, claim that to believe is to have faith and both are "gifts" of God),

Both are gifts of God (Eph 2:8-9).


5) claim that we don't choose God, He chooses us (ergo, totally negating the "salvation model" given in 1Cor 15:1-4).

Of course Paul never states that people choose God, in fact in Romans 3 he says the exact opposite. I believe it was the Lord Jesus Himself who said we did not choose Him but rather He chose us. Since I am not at my computer I don't know the verse off the top of my head, but I believe it can be found in either John 15 or 17.


Now I know as well that some of you THINK you are Calvinists without having investigated any of this.

O, I have investigated this.

Believe me, if you are saved, you're not going to pay attention too much to how they say you got there.

I don't agree with that statement.

 

To the Calvinists - How would you clasify this statement made by a Calinist Preacher. Or this one I haven't heard of:

Me - I think they're Hyper-Calvinistic as the authors are insinuating that (and I agree with his conclusion regarding the statement "he" makes) what appears to be double-predestinationism.

BTW - what is a Seven point Calvinist!? In my studies on Calvinism I guess I missed two.

 

The second quote is a comment off of the Pastor I quoted first.

 

typically, the recite the creed as an affirmation of doctrine, not salvation.

Really? And how do you know that?

There is no doubt that we need to hear, believe, and receive. That is standard Calvinistic doctrine. Some hyper Calvinists, such as Primitive Baptists, deny this, but Calvinism does not.

Where is the conflict? Calvinism teaches this.

Actually he doesn’t.

The “critical question” is not unanswered. The Bible says he chooses us to magnify his grace (Eph 1 – that we should be to the praise of the glory of his grace).

When they call on the name of the Lord.

And how do you know that?

I think we are seeing further confirmation that you are not talking about Calvinism, and that you have a hyper judgmental spirit about who is saved and who is not.

 

I didn't know Piper was a hyper-calvinist, I thought he was a strong 5 pointer.

 

God gave us His perfect picture of the 'elect' and how election works in the OT by taking the Israelites and making them His very own people, teaching them, giving them strict laws, sacrifices, and protected them, disciplinining them, setting them totally apart from the rest of the world and warning them against intermingling. He even 'cleared out' many nations before them to make way for them.
This is such a beautiful picture of what He does for those who belong to Him now!

He didnt choose every human to be part of His people, but only the jews!

Today it is His church that is set apart, the elect, not everybody, but those He chose in eternity past and that come to faith in time as He determines.

We dont alter, or even fully understand His whole plan, but we are to submit to it in great gratitude that we are so priviledged to be part of it! Does someone desperately want to belong? Ask for His mercy. He will not turn you away!

 

Amen, Amen and Amen!!!

Brother, you have painted a very clear birds-eye view of Calvinism in one simply statement. It is a beautiful picture indeed, once you see it in its glory.

 

==That is because Piper is not a hyper-Calvinist. Anyone who thinks he is has no idea what they are talking about....

Yes, it is that simple.

 

All five pointers recognize infant baptism?!?

 

Thanks Jarthur! God is so great!

No, webdog, all reformed/calvinists do not believe in infant baptism. Some do. Reformed baptist mostly do not. We are credobaptist, or we baptize believers as we feel scripture so instructs.
Paedobaptist baptize infants as they mostly are presbyterian.
Not all inclusive statements but mostly. I'm quite sure there are exceptions. And today there are even reformed baptist churches that are 'accepting' infant baptisms of new members I've read.
My reformed baptist church only baptises believers.

 

Uh- What did I miss on this one, about I Cor. 12:3? I did not see what you are suggesting in that verse, at all.

First and foremost, the context is that specifically of 'Spiritual gifts', not salvation.

Second, is not this verse closely akin to another vis-a-vis`"anathema/ maranatha" (αναθεμα μαραναθα) that we see in I Cor. 16:22, both of which, I believe, are a subtle 'reminder' of the misuse of the 'so-claimed and so-called "gift of tongues"', by Paul and the Holy Spirit?

Third, where does Scripture say or imply (which is what this POV is implying sub silento, BTW) that "Lordship" can be claimed or 'submitted to' by any person who is not a believer (Christian, regenerated, or whatever term you select), in the first place? 'Lordship' i.e. 'submission' is part and parcel of ' sanctification' or 'discipleship', and not by definition, part and parcel of salvation, which is simply by faith/believe. (John 1:12; 3:16, 36; 6:47; Eph 2:8,9) I do not believe in what is usually termed "Lordship salvation", the idea that unless "one makes Christ Lord", he or she has not 'received Him' as their Savior. The Lordship or discipleship bit is reserved for those who are regenerate, hence it is found in Eph. 2:10 where we are 'created in Christ Jesus unto (For the purpose of) the good works which God has before ordained that we should walk in them.' I suggest these are the same 'good works' that Paul is talking about that "they who have believed (catch the tense, here?) in God might be careful to devote themselves to good works" {Tit. 3:8 - HCSB - c.f. 3:14; also Heb. 10:24; I Pet. 2:12; Acts 9: 36 (note Dorcas was already a disciple); Matt. 5:16 [note Jesus was addressing His 'disciples', not for the purpose of 'getting them saved' (whatever that is supposed to mean), but to teach them about what discipleship is]}

Why do I seem to feel like :BangHead: with so many, as I attempt to explain this, and not confuse or confute salvation and discipleship?

Wait! I know! It just hit me! :tonofbricks: A-a-a-a-nd that for about the 'umpty seventh' time!

There is no real or qualitative difference between Calvinism and Arminianism! That's it! Guess what? "Perseverance" in Arminian theology is little different from "perseverance" in Calvinist theology. It is still "perseverance of the saints", and if they ain't persevering (at least to suit any of someone's varied unstated and undefined ideas of what persevering should really entail) they obviously ain't saints!

And why bother with that little, minor, miniscule, trivial, annoying, insignificant detail that the words "perseverance of the saints" never occur in Scripture, at least in the KJV? Or the ASV! Or Darby! Or YLT! Or NKJV! Or Wyc! Or HCSB! OR ESV! (Anyone besides me starting to notice a small trend here?)

Ed

P.S. Outta' curiosity, is the position I here advocate actually "anthropocentric", or merely "scary"? Just wonderin'!

P.P.S. You are on the right track, at least as to some of this, Brother or Sister skypair! Don't allow yourself to be shot out of the sky by theological 'flak'!

 

This caught my eye to the extent that I have reread all the posts in this thread three times. Undoubtedly I missed it three times. Where are the words "Seven point Calvinist" found here? As one who is a 'no-point Calvinist' as well as a 'no-point Arminian', I'm simply not finding these words you spoke of. Help! The 'number' of the post will do.

Thanks,

Ed

 

I do not, and no one I know personally does either.

Eph 1:3-6
4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will- 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves
(from New International Version)

 

You have no doctrinal beliefs?

 

1. Infant baptism and hyper-calvinism are unrelated.
2. Piper does not "recognize" infant baptism.
3. You know this already.
4. I don't know what this has to do with the OP, except that it is also a poor misrepresentation of Calvinism.

Do you just do this for fun?