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

[Robert Snow]

The non-Calvinists just couldn't resist posting in this thread. Like a moth drawn to the flame.

In this case its a biblical moth trying to put out an ungodly flame! :laugh:

 

[Herald]

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.

Winman, what an amazing statement. It's not like Arminians don't have their own vagaries.

And just for the record, supra and infralapsarians are almost identical on what they believe. It's their view on passive or active reprobatation that is the area of disagreement. I'm sure you know what those two are, right?

 

[Herald]

In this case its a biblical moth trying to put out an ungodly flame! :laugh:

Good one. I prefer to view it as the errant moth being consumed by the flame of truth. Touche.

 

[Greektim]

Winman, what an amazing statement. It's not like Arminians don't have their own vagaries.

And just for the record, supra and infralapsarians are almost identical on what they believe. It's their view on passive or active reprobatation that is the area of disagreement. I'm sure you know what those two are, right?

Bingo!

:thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

Good thread Herald,
As with any other area of study.....whatever God has ordained is fine with me....and even if it is not fine with me.......it will come to pass exactly as God has ordained it for His own Glory.
I have held to both at one time or another,:laugh: When I read Pink, or Gill I drift that way [supra].....but many others make me consider the infra view.

here is a helpful article that helps frame out the issue for those not as familiar with it.

http://www.the-highway.com/Bavinck_predestination2.html

I think there are three or four verses that need to be explained here.

11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

7Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

8And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
[/QUOTE

12While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

25That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

 

[Winman]

Winman, what an amazing statement. It's not like Arminians don't have their own vagaries.

And just for the record, supra and infralapsarians are almost identical on what they believe. It's their view on passive or active reprobatation that is the area of disagreement. I'm sure you know what those two are, right?

Oh, I know that Non-Cals also disagree, that is not the point. The point is that Calvinists CONSTANTLY accuse Non-Cals of not understanding the doctrines of Grace, or of misrepresenting it. You see this argument from non-Cals on occasion, but not to such a degree and frequency as from Calvinists. It is a bogus argument because if you represent one Calvinist accurately, another Calvinist will say we do not understand Calvinism and are misrepresenting what they believe. Wow, really?? How can anyone accurately represent a wide variety of views?

The biggest difference between Cals and non-Cals is over ability, all other points flow from this. It is not so complex and intellectual as you would have people believe. A lot of it is pure mumbo-jumbo. Translation: BALONEY.

 

[Iconoclast]

I am an anti-calvinist....oh sorry, that wasn't one of the choices was it?

John

Not to take away from the OP.....seekingtruth, you have a chance to study and learn more about God's grace here. In another thread you mentioned something about interacting with one calvinist that lived by you and that has given you an inclination to oppose what you think the teaching is.

It seems that the one person you mentioned did not seem to be well grounded in truth as he needs to be...or you have perhaps misunderstood what he offered to you.
In an earler post on this thread with jbh you remarked that you agreed 100% with his statement, but yet you viewed it as a contradiction, or an either /or statement.
A correct understanding is as jbh posted.....it is both /and.
Try to restrain your impulse to just lash out against the position until you can articulate it accurately. If you ask sincere questions you will get a biblical reply.:thumbsup:

 

[Winman]

Bingo!

:thumbs:

And yes, I understand active (God causes) and passive (God allows) reprobation, but I am sure you will say I am wrong.

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

Winman,

The bible is a big book.It takes time to work through it. Each believer is growing in grace and knowledge at different rates.
The biblical teaching does not change. Our perception or lack of perception of truth varies.
Some have training in the original languages and some do not. Some have limitations.....poor reading/comprehension skills, handicaps, previous bad teaching that need to be overcome.

Why would this seem "impossible" to grasp?

 

[Don]

Well, I thought it was gonna be a good thread, and give us some basis/reference for understanding and future discussion; but some folks are so contrary they just gotta jump in and stir the waters. And it ain't the calvinists I'm talking about (and let's not forget: I ain't a calvinist).

Herald, keep plugging away. This was a good effort.

 

[Winman]

Winman,

The bible is a big book.It takes time to work through it. Each believer is growing in grace and knowledge at different rates.
The biblical teaching does not change. Our perception or lack of perception of truth varies.
Some have training in the original languages and some do not. Some have limitations.....poor reading/comprehension skills, handicaps, previous bad teaching that need to be overcome.

Why would this seem "impossible" to grasp?

I never said it is unusual for Cals to disagree with each other, where did you get that idea?

I said it is a bogus argument to constantly accuse non-Cals of misunderstanding or misrepresenting Calvinism because no two Calvinists agree 100%.

 

[freeatlast]

I have been accused of being many things including a Calvinist although I reject the title because of what I understand about the man John Calvin. I hold to parts of supralapsarianism and Arminianism at the same time. Where that puts me I have no idea, but it is what I find in the bible so I hang on to it.

 

[Don]

I never said it is unusual for Cals to disagree with each other, where did you get that idea?

I said it is a bogus argument to constantly accuse non-Cals of misunderstanding or misrepresenting Calvinism because no two Calvinists agree 100%.

Winman, you're the pot calling the kettle black. I know you'll admit that non-cals have a greater variety of differences than calvinists (simply because "non-cal" involves anything that doesn't identify with calvinism). The whole point of this thread is to identify the different types of calvinists; but you're trying to make a point instead of letting them do that.

Identify what type of non-cal you are; or better yet, start a thread for "what type of non-cal are you." Or go ahead and start a thread discussing non-cal beliefs vice supralapsarianism, or infra, or another variation of calvinism. But let's let this thread do what it was intended to do. Otherwise, we just come away looking petty.

 

[Iconoclast]

I would also be interested to hear how the infra-Calvinists (who seem to repeatedly on this post say that God does not choose some to go to hell, but that all are on their way to hell until God elects to save some) deal with passages like:

Rom. 9:11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of thim who calls—12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”...

17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills....

22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

Mark 4:11 And he said to them, “To you has been given gthe secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables,
12 so that “they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.”


Again, I know what the non-cals have said, but I would like to hear how an infra-Calvinist explains these verses.

The absence of God giving grace,leads to a hardening process. I think three times Pharoah is said to have hardened his own heart, and then we are also told that God hardened pharoahs heart. [so was it an active action, or a witholding of grace?]

YLT has it;

21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

With the potter.....he makes one vessel unto honour [actively] he fashions it
another unto dishonour[passive] he does not fashion it unto honour.

The infra view states that God overlooks those vessels unto dishonour.....that he has considered the lump of clay as unholy to start with.....they considered as fallen are "left" in that position.[passive} the vessels unto Honour are actively predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son.
Predestination is primarily used in reference to the vessels of Honour being actively conformed to the image of the Son Rom8:28-39 particularily vs,29.


While the outcome is the same for the unbeliever,ie, second death....
there does not seem to be the same emphasis on God's active working.

30Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the LORD hath rejected them.

 

[matt wade]

Winman, you're the pot calling the kettle black. I know you'll admit that non-cals have a greater variety of differences than calvinists (simply because "non-cal" involves anything that doesn't identify with calvinism). The whole point of this thread is to identify the different types of calvinists; but you're trying to make a point instead of letting them do that.

Identify what type of non-cal you are; or better yet, start a thread for "what type of non-cal are you." Or go ahead and start a thread discussing non-cal beliefs vice supralapsarianism, or infra, or another variation of calvinism. But let's let this thread do what it was intended to do. Otherwise, we just come away looking petty.

If you don't wish to debate things, don't post in the debate forum.

 

[Iconoclast]

The non-Calvinists just couldn't resist posting in this thread. Like a moth drawn to the flame.

Believing non cals are really cals who do not know it yet! I think I remember someone saying that in a sermon one time:laugh::laugh:

 

[preacher4truth]

Well, I thought it was gonna be a good thread, and give us some basis/reference for understanding and future discussion; but some folks are so contrary they just gotta jump in and stir the waters. And it ain't the calvinists I'm talking about (and let's not forget: I ain't a calvinist).

Herald, keep plugging away. This was a good effort.

I sincerely appreciate your attitude and spirit within this thread. Thanks for your interest in what Calvinist brethren believe, including myself.

- Peace!

 

[JesusFan]

Historically Amyraldism has not been considered part of the DoG. Definite atonement is inherent to the DoG.

Would amend that to say that we have been seen as being "lesser" calvinists, as someone like RC Sproul tends to see us as being "inconsistant" cals, as logically we should affirm limited atonement!

 

[12strings]

Also, let's not forget that the paedobaptists would not consider any "baptist" a real calvinist!

 

[Herald]

A lot of it is pure mumbo-jumbo. Translation: BALONEY.

You don't believe that for one second or else you would simply have ignored this thread.

I give Don a lot of credit. He disagrees with Calvinism but has done so, in this thread, not as a antagonist. He's willing to read and see what his Calvinist brethren believe. You, on the other hand, feel compelled to chime in and stir the pot. I wonder what brand of Arminianism that is; active or passive contrarianism?