John Piper

If Calvinism meant followers of "John Calvin", then you would be right. Calvinism is but a lable for the "doctrines of grace". So yes we could also list Paul, and Augustine and a few others, from Augustines time to the reformation.

 

1. Nope. Carey was not "Calvinistic". He was a Calvinist.

2. Tell me, was God standing helplessly by during the holocaust just watching it unfold, unable to do anything about it? Was his will, as Rick Warren believes, thwarted by the will of man? Or was he just as shocked by it as we were, as Campolo believes? Was he just sitting around one day, minding his own business when evil happened without his knowledge and without anything that he could do to stop it?

3.I don't wonder at all. It is all part of the Arminian numbers game. See what great evangelists we are? We baptized 300 last year. Glory to us. Speaking of which, did you notice at the last Convention how it was mostly Calvinists like Tom Ascol who wanted to encourage Churches to purge membership records of those who don't come and how it was mostly non-Calvinists who didn't?

Joseph Botwinick

 

El_Guero said:

Um ... show me . . .

No again. You're the one asserting that Calvin taught such-and-such, so why don't you show us where he did? I'm from Missouri. The burden of proof is yours.

 

I guess my point is that if your classification of Calvinism seems to be so vague to have little value. What does "doctrines of grace" mean? That is vague terminology. Every Christian believes we are saved by grace, Calvinist, Arminian, Catholic, Orthodox, protestant, etc.

If you go with TULIP which can be considered a five point summary of modern Calvinism, it will be difficult to show that pre-Calvin christians articulated all five of those points. They may have articulated one or some of those points with similar theologies in different words with different emphases at one time.

I'm not saying this makes Calvinism true or not. I'm simply saying that I consider calling pre-Calvin Christians Calvinists to be disingenuous. I have no problem calling them pre-cursors or influences to Calvinism.

 

This is not true. Non Calvinists like to claim they are saved by "prevenient grace", but in the end, they are really only espousing a works based salvation with a foundation in their own free will. They saved themselves.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I would call the teachings of Paul and Christ the foundations of Calvinist theology. It did not influence Calvinism. It was Calvinism before Calvin was ever born. He simply agreed with them and had the name attached to it. Many people today call it Calvinism. I just call it Biblical Christianity. This is where I am sure we will disagree. But that is ok.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I am unfamiliar with the term prevenient. So Calvinism isn't the "doctrines of grace" but the "doctrines of a particular type of grace".

I don't agree with your assessment that non-calvinists espouse a works based salvation, but for the sake of this discussion, I'll assume you are correct.

BTW, I don't consider myself a non-calvinist, but I also don't consider myself a calvinist. Messed up, eh?

 

This is a ridiculous extremist statement. So to carry your thought out to its logical conclusion Joseph, you must believe that those who are non-calvinist are not saved. As one cannot save themselves. It is this type of arrogant attitude that makes any considerate discourse with some people impossible, they want you to believe that if you don't think like them you're a heretic. Too bad some who strongly expouse the doctrines of grace have little to share with others.

Bro Tony

 

I once sang an African Christmas Carol in Choir. I am Africanistic. Hey...I guess we are the world...:laugh:

Joseph Botwinick

 

I would say Paul wrote about Pauline theology. Christ spoke about Christological theology. Both Paul's writings and Christ's words are used in the formation of biblical theology.

I would describe Calvin's contribution as highlighting and articulating particular aspects of biblical theology in light of the theological questions being asked in the 1500s, many of which (questions, highlighting and articulations) are still relevant today.

 

If you believe that there was some hidden good within yourself that caused you to save yourself, then no, you are not a Christian. Salvation is either all of God, or it is no salvation at all.

Joseph Botwinick

 

This is incorrect and a misunderstanding of prevenient grace in hte arminian system.

Arminians believe in total depravity. For them, total depravity is met by a universal prevenient grace (sometimes given to all; sometimes given in conjunciton with the gospel message). For them, it is not efficacious and thus does not ensure hte response. So prevenient grace is not saving grace. We should not mistake it for such.

 

Are we not allowed to use the quote feature?

Joseph Botwinick

 

If that's the burden of proof then it would be difficult to show that Calvin articulated all five of those points, since those five points were never articulated, in the "five point" form to which we are familiar, until many years after Calvin died. By the way, do you even know why there are five points, and how those points came to be articulated in the form to which we are familiar?

"Calvinism" is much bigger than five points of TULIP. For example, if one man says he believes in "limited atonement" and another says he believes in "unlimited atonement" then it is very likely that they mean different things by "atonement". The only way that one can hold to a Calvinistic definition of "atonement" and believe that it is "unlimited" is to hold to universal salvation. I do not personally know of any universalists. Do you?

 

"Prevenient Grace" is not grace at all because in the end, it relies on man's response to it to make them worthy of it being effective. Grace is given to those who are not seeking it and are not in any way worthy of it.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I agree that it is difficult to say Calvin articulated all those five points. Which accentuates the point even more of the difficulty of classifying who is a Calvinist and who isn't. It also accentuates the silliness of Calvinists who anathematize other Calvinists who disagree with one or more points in TULIP.

I am familiar with Calvin's writings but I am not familiar with the history of how his writings evolved into the five points and would love to learn that history.

 

Looked it up. The five points were articulated in the Synod of Dort in response to the Five articles of Remonstrance by Arminius' followers.

Cool. I always thought TULIP came first but it is good to know now.

 

Here's my brief summary. After James Arminius died some of his students began expanding on his teachings. They presented a summary form of their beliefs, in five points, and in 1618 (I believe) the Synod of Dordt rejected their five points, and presented a response to each of those five points. Their response eventually evolved into what we know as TULIP.

The important thing about the history (in my opinion) is that the five point form was never really intended to be a complete summary of soteriology. It was simply a response to what the majority of the day saw as an incorrect view of the gospel, and was not intended to be all-inclusive. It is also worth pointing out that, as the Synod presented their response, the responses were presented as inseparable. They would have found the idea of a 3 or 4 pointer inconceivable. That's why a lot of Calvinists still say that you cannot reject any of the five points without rejecting the whole system, because you have to change the definitions of their terms in order to accept some points and reject the others. The "atonement" example illustrates this well - to accept 4 points and then to proclaim universal atonement is to redefine atonement as the Synod understood it.

I'd encourage you to search on "Synod of Dordt" for more information.

 

Thanks for the summary. :thumbsup:

 

You are incorrect. You are apparently confusing prevenient grace with saving grace. They are not the same. Prevenient grace does not save. It restores "freedom of hte will" that was lost in total depravity. Prevenient grace is effective by definition.

Saving grace is dependent on man's choice to respond after he has been enabled by prevenient grace.

Prevenient grace is to arminianism what efficacious grace is to Calvinism. They both restore the ability lost in depravity. The difference is that efficacious grace is, as you might suspect, efficacious. It guarantees its outcome. Prevenient grace only makes it possible.

Joseph, your comments are very sharp and demonstrate some key misunderstandings. I disagree with arminianism as much if not more than you do, but we need not misrepresent them. Perhaps a softer approach might communicate better.