If You're a Calvinist, what type of Calvinist are you?

[webdog]

God knows what we're going to pray before we utter the words, correct (Rom. 8:26)? So why pray? Besides the fact that God commands it, prayer is really for man. Prayer displays our dependence on God. Prayer displays our humility. Prayer displays our love for others as we intercede for them. Prayer is evidence of our burden for the lost. Prayer is part of God's sovereign plan. When we pray we are caught up in the unfolding of God's will in heaven and on earth.

While all good points it doesn't touch on predeterminism...and besides, can't the one who believed in free will that you questioned reply with the exact same answer?

 

[Herald]

...can't the one who believed in free will that you questioned reply with the exact same answer?

Sure, but not when it comes to praying for the lost. If an Arminian prays for God to save someone they really are praying for God to assault that person's will.

 

[webdog]

Sure, but not when it comes to praying for the lost. If an Arminian prays for God to save someone they really are praying for God to assault that person's will.

Not even close. When those who are not calvinists (not arminians as you falsely label) pray for the salvation of others we take the fact God has said that "the prayer of the righteous availeth much" and we are praying that God illuminates their heart to the truths that have already been presented to them, that they do not exchange them for a lie, and that He will put those people and circumstances in front of them to see clearly. I've even prayed that if He has judicially hardened someone to lift that.

Before you tell me how I pray it would help to ask first.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Pastor Chanski, nee Martin? No. But I've visited there. I was born and raised in Hudson County.

OK where, Bayonne,Bergen,East Newark, Guttenberg,Harrison,Hoboken,JC, Kearny,
West New York?

hopefully your a Giants fan!

 

[Herald]

Kearny, born and raised; and yes, I'm a Giants fan. "Cut me, do I not bleed blue?"

 

[Herald]

Not even close. When those who are not calvinists (not arminians as you falsely label) pray for the salvation of others we take the fact God has said that "the prayer of the righteous availeth much" and we are praying that God illuminates their heart to the truths that have already been presented to them, that they do not exchange them for a lie, and that He will put those people and circumstances in front of them to see clearly. I've even prayed that if He has judicially hardened someone to lift that.

Before you tell me how I pray it would help to ask first.

Ah, I credit you for being a consistent Arminian (even if you reject the term). That's not sarcasm by the way.

 

[webdog]

Ah, I credit you for being a consistent Arminian (even if you reject the term). That's not sarcasm by the way.

I take it you will have no problem being labeled a Roman Catholic from this point on even if you reject the term? Not only are you ignorant on how to "label" but on the very doctrines you use in doing so.

 

[Herald]

I take it you will have no problem being labeled a Roman Catholic from this point on even if you reject the term? Not only are you ignorant on how to "label" but on the very doctrines you use in doing so.

You can call me whatever you like. I'll apply labels as I believe they are due. And as Michael Corleone said, "It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business."

 

[Winman]

Not even close. When those who are not calvinists (not arminians as you falsely label) pray for the salvation of others we take the fact God has said that "the prayer of the righteous availeth much" and we are praying that God illuminates their heart to the truths that have already been presented to them, that they do not exchange them for a lie, and that He will put those people and circumstances in front of them to see clearly. I've even prayed that if He has judicially hardened someone to lift that.

Before you tell me how I pray it would help to ask first.

Yes. I have also prayed for those who seem very hardened to the gospel that God would continue to be patient with them and not give them up or give them over as shown in Romans 1.

And I am not Arminian also.

 

[webdog]

You can call me whatever you like. I'll apply labels as I believe they are due. And as Michael Corleone said, "It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business."

Its not business to essentially call someone a liar, its personal. I do not believe one can lose their salvation. I am not an arminian. Period. Its funny...you don't think someone can be an calvinist by being an amyraldist (lacking one point), but have no problem with labeling someone else lacking a point or two. Staple of inconsistency.

 

[Herald]

Its not business to essentially call someone a liar, its personal.

When discussing soteriology anyone who advocates the free will position is advocating Arminianism, although not necessarily Arminianism en toto. That's the way I see it. In fact, that's the way most theologians who debate this subject see it. What you call yourself is fine. I'm not going to argue that you should or shouldn't call yourself something. I'm not seeking agreement here.

 

[webdog]

When discussing soteriology anyone who advocates the free will position is advocating Arminianism, although not necessarily Arminianism en toto. That's the way I see it. In fact, that's the way most theologians who debate this subject see it. What you call yourself is fine. I'm not going to argue that you should or shouldn't call yourself something. I'm not seeking agreement here.

The problem here is you are not the authority. You yourself said if you do not hold to all 5 points you are not a calvinist, but the table turns and you can be arminian not holding to all points? At least be consistent man! I'm not looking for agreement on the issues, you seem to have your mind set.

 

[Rippon]

I do not believe one can lose their salvation. I am not an Arminian. Period.

Many Arminians believe that can't lose their salvation --other Arminians think it's possible. In the Articles of the Remonstrance apparently it was up in the air even though Arminius said that no believer can be plucked from Christ's hand.

So historically speaking just because one insists they can't be Arminian because they believe in eternal security --that's not true --especially when the bulk of their response to the Reformed propositions of lines up with their own theology.

 

[Rippon]

And I am not Arminian also.

I'm smiling at this remark of yours Winman.

 

[Winman]

I'm smiling at this remark of yours Winman.

Glad I made you happy. But I am not Arminian, I do not believe you can lose salvation. However, I believe in Preservation, not Perseverance which are very different.

I also believe all men have the natural ability to believe, which I believe disagrees with Arminianism, however I do not believe any man could possibly believe on Jesus without God's grace of revealing Jesus to us through the scriptures and the convicting power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Iconoclast]

When discussing soteriology anyone who advocates the free will position is advocating Arminianism, although not necessarily Arminianism en toto. That's the way I see it. In fact, that's the way most theologians who debate this subject see it. What you call yourself is fine. I'm not going to argue that you should or shouldn't call yourself something. I'm not seeking agreement here.

Exactly.
No one wants to identify with being an arminian because it has been shown to be unsound. At the same time they want to deny the DoG at every turn.
Some have said they used to hold to these truths,and yet the questioning of prayer as a means that God has ordained shows a lack of ever having an understanding of the DoG....position.:type:

 

[Don]

Exactly.
No one wants to identify with being an arminian because it has been shown to be unsound. At the same time they want to deny the DoG at every turn.
Some have said they used to hold to these truths,and yet the questioning of prayer as a means that God has ordained shows a lack of ever having an understanding of the DoG....position.:type:

Um...in another thread, I specifically identified myself as more of a classical arminian point of view, with a tendency toward amyraldism...so you're kinda incorrect about no one wants to identify with being an arminian....

 

[Iconoclast]

Um...in another thread, I specifically identified myself as more of a classical arminian point of view, with a tendency toward amyraldism...so you're kinda incorrect about no one wants to identify with being an arminian....

Don,
You have stated what you believed very openly and that is a good thing.
Everyone stands somewhere. We should obey and believe what we do, until we can come to a more complete understanding.
The goal is not to be contentious...but rather to grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord.I did not recall your post ,although I do remember something about the amyraldism view.
In either case...I think it has become apparent that many resist that "label' because it is not biblically defensible.
You have I believe a correct biblical attitude, in that although you do not share what many of us believe, you welcome taking a look and understanding why we believe as many of the professing church has throughout the years.
One of the views is wrong......so the issue is very important.
is this what you hold???

The major element or principle in the teaching of Amyraldus is a “hypothetical universalism”. This was an “ideal universalism” with an “actual particularism”. This governing principle found manifestation in the following four issues:
• A “hypothetical conditional predestination.” Amyraldus held that God possesses a two–fold will: a universal and conditional will and a particular and unconditional will. God sincerely wills or desires the salvation of all men on the condition that they believe, although none are enabled to believe but the elect.768
• A “hypothetical universal atonement.” He held that Christ died for all men alike, and that God will accept all men on the condition of faith. The atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect.
• A “conditional covenant of grace.” Amyraldus held that the Divine covenant was not two–fold (a covenant of works and a covenant of grace), but rather three–fold: a

covenant of nature established between God and Adam, a covenant of Law between God and Israel, and a covenant of grace established between God and all mankind. This final “covenant of grace” was itself two–fold: a conditional covenant of universal grace with all mankind (a universal “offer of grace”) and an unconditional covenant of particular grace. The former is conditioned on faith; the latter creates faith in the elect. Thus, Amyraldus distinguished between “objective grace” and “subjective grace”.
• Human depravity is essentially noetic, i.e., it derives from the effects of sin upon the mind. It is this noetic effect that produces moral depravity.769 Amyraldus thus reduced the work of regeneration by the Holy Spirit to the illumination of the intellect. Following Cameron, he held “...that the will always follows the intellect, that the irresistible working of God upon the will of man is effected through the illumination of the intellect.”770 Thus, a distinction was made between natural ability and moral ability. Man possesses the former, but lacks the latter. In this, he was in turn followed by Claude Pajon, who further developed this idea.
The views of Amyraldus were supported by his colleagues and the pastors of the Reformed Church in Charenton. He was investigated, tried for heresy, admonished, and cleared by three synods: the National Synod of Alençon (1637), the synod of Charenton (1644), and at the synod of Loudun (1659). The Formula Consensus Helveticus (1675) was written by the Swiss Reformed Church against him, his colleagues and their influence.
Much has been written both for and against the Amyraldian position, especially that of a “hypothetic” universal atonement which teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ died to make men savable or make salvation possible—a position not unlike classic Arminianism, and in itself alters the very purpose and nature of the atonement.771 This issue has been dealt with in Part II of these lectures.
It may suffice, in answer to Amyraldus, to state that his purpose was to effect a reconciliation which was narrower than his universalist principle of compromise could attain. This principle of universalism, a major characteristic of Arminianism (be it hypothetical or not) mitigates against the very essence of consistent Christianity. B. B.

taken from Calvinism/arminianism....WR.Downing

 

[David Lamb]

This thread demonstrates why the common argument that Non-Cals misrepresent Calvinism is a false argument. It is impossible for anyone to accurately describe Calvinism because each Calvinist believes differently.

That said, it is interesting to see what each Calvinist here believes.

Differences of belief are not only to be found among Calvinists, though, are they?

Non-calvinists also differ about all sorts of things - they are not the homogeneous group your post suggests.

And to say that each Calvinist believes differently is a gross overstatement.

 

[Luke2427]

Glad I made you happy. But I am not Arminian, I do not believe you can lose salvation. However, I believe in Preservation, not Perseverance which are very different.

I also believe all men have the natural ability to believe, which I believe disagrees with Arminianism, however I do not believe any man could possibly believe on Jesus without God's grace of revealing Jesus to us through the scriptures and the convicting power of the Holy Spirit.

Yea, so you're basically an inconsistent Pelagian. You are worse than...[inflammatory language snipped]