Need A True Explaination of Calvinism

...

I love it when a good plan comes together.

So now I must ask. Will you now be a Calvinist or trash Darby and Scofield?

:laugh: :laugh:

Stick around for the latest update.

 

I did not attack anyone. I warned Pastor timothy that webdog is not a reliable source for a "true explanation of Calvinism." Webdog has been told time and time again what Calvinism believes and he refuses to accept it. I have never asked him to agree with us, but at least he can accurately represet what we believe. My fear was that pastor Timothy has not been around the board long enough to understand that Webdog is not reliable. On this matter, he is ignorant. That's not an attack. There are a great many things I am ignorant on. Being ignorant simply means someone doesn't know something. We are all ignorant on some things. So please do not confuse tellling the truth about someone's lack of knowledge with a personal attack. I made no comment about him personally.

 

You're a class act, Larry. Opinions are like nostrils...we all have them. Yours is just that, and not fact.

 

Dog,

Being new to this forum, please can you concisely explain what Free Grace means?

Thanks

 

It's a fact and I proven by quoting you. When you say that Calvinists believe that someone is saved without faith, you are demonstrating the fact that you are uninformed about Calvinism. And I could post many quotes that prove that.


Seriously, don't take yourself so seriously. I am sure you understand a great many things. Calvinism is simply not one of them at this point.

 

Free Grace is mostly 4-point Arminianism: the first four Arminian points with Preservation of the Saints instead of Perseverance of the Saints.

Most people who say they are neither Calvinist nor Arminian are likely 4-point A's. They only differ from full Arminians in that they believe in OSAS (once saved always saved) whereas 5-point Arminians believe that one's free will can allow him to lose his salvation.

I would venture to guess that most non-Calvinist Baptists are 4-point Arminians that believe in OSAS.

 

Calvinists do not separate faith from salvation. They believe that faith is just as connected to salvation as do non-Calvinists. However, Calvinists believe that faith is the channel through which grace is given. To illustrate, faith would be like a funnel through which oil is transferred into an engine. The engine is not the source of the funnel, rather the one putting the oil into the engine is. The funnel still comes out of the engine, but did not originate from the engine. No Calvinist is saying that faith is separate from salvation or that one is saved without faith. No Calvinist is saying that a regenerate soul doesn't exercise faith, but that the faith doesn't originate in the believer.

 

Don't forget that classical Arminians believe in the Calvinistic view of Total depravity.

So in truth many who claim to be niether actaully hold to variations of both, thus making one niether one or the other.

I believe that one can not in truth call oneself a true Calvinist unless you hold to all 5 principle points. Anything less (in most of the High Calvinist mind set) is nothing short of being an Arminian. Except of course those who don't hold to all 5, these four pointers contend constantly with 5'ers to maintian their prestigous claim to Calvinism but are more like the proverbial red-headed step child no one wants to claim association with.

So in contention with your addressed view that most non-Calvinist Baptists are 4 pointers is actaully inaccurate in that they are more in line with maybe 3 points of classical Arminiainism.

The contention of this difference goes back much further than the 1500's of Calvin and Arminius and even furthur than Augustine and Peligus (after Augustine changed from Free-Will himself). These theologies have grown and modified over the centuries while still maintaining at least their basic cores. The Calvinists of 200 or even a 100 years ago would kick most present day Calvinists out of their churches due to modifications of their doctrines. Is that good or bad? That would depend on your understanding of what God has revealed to you and staying true to His revelation through scripture. Remember though, these two main theological distictives have been amongst the redeemed since the early church (as we can find both sides of our theologies in the early church fathers) and after 2000 years it still is not a decided and immutable fact by which all the redeemed say so. And since it is God who leads, enlightens, and directs each person to different theoligical views, it is God who establishes/established us in that which we hold theologically.

Personally, I don't see why the majority Calvinists don't grasp this. I mean when we maintain the Calvinistic mind set regarding this matter, I must ask:
If God has set and determind all things, is it not God that leads a person to believe in either theological way. Can a man deny the awesome power and will of God? It is the Spirit of God who teaches the redeemed and leads us into all truth and Him alone who enlightens and reveals. Can we stay as believers in rebellion to the truth of God without His chastening hand upon us or worse His scourging? It is God who lifts up and God who casts down and therfore it is to and by Him alone do we stand or fall.
How can I rail to God, why have you made me thus, and not a Calvinist?
When God, according to His good pleasure, purpose, and will determind my view and millions of others over the centuries before the foundation of the world.

 

I wouldn't say NO Calvinist would say that, but more like the majority.

I have met (on here) some who hold that Salvation is given REGARDLESS of if one believes or has faith.

However, concerning the above analogy - that is a good analogy regarding your understanding or point of view of faith but it is not the only view and therefore not the only analogy that is considered scriptural.

 

Hello Allan,

I agree with all of your history notes, and most all of you opinions on this post

I only repost two lines from that post..to address them. Going by historical views, would you agree that being that the "state of man" after the fall, was Pelagius main point, in that he denied total depravity making mans will full and free, that those that are Arminian and also deny man is dead, are not really in the middle of Armin/Calvin as they may think, but rather lean more toward Pelagianism?

You are very right when you say Arminians of the past believed in total depravity. They did not agree with each other on ways around this problem. But at least they addressed it. Yet I have found on the Baptist Board, 2-3 guys that seem to be fully into Pelagianism.

************

To address the 2nd line..

Views on election seem to be the line in the sand. It is for Calvinist, this I'm sure of. If you do not believe in election, as other Calvinist, we will never claim you.

 

Actually no, I wouldn't place them in the same catagory.
Peleganism believed :

This is very much the same theologically as Mormons and JW's and not at all in line with classical Arminianism, which espouses man is Totally depraved and if God by His Grace did not intercede on behalf of sinful man then man was doomed. The epitomize "we are saved by Grace through Faith..." Also in Arminianism the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus is not devoid of its power but it emphasized in great detail.

Calvinists also make a great mistake in assuming the non-cal/non-Arm position is simi-Pelegan but the do this not understanding the core belief of the simi-Pelegan as well; which is

In this view (simi-peliganism) we actually have more of a traditional Catholic view in that man and God are co-equals in their salvation. God does not seek man (which is the same as the pelegan view) however when man seeks after God (with no divine influence attributed) God rewards man by giving him salvation and grace instead the Pelegan view of man earning salvation through good works and grace is just a bonus but not necessary. Again we see God is secondary this view as well and not primary in coming to man who of and by himself will not seek God because man is depraved due to our sin nature.

To address the 2nd line..

Views on election seem to be the line in the sand. It is for Calvinist, this I'm sure of. If you do not believe in election, as other Calvinist, we will never claim you. [/QUOTE]
Personally, I think it is coupled with "Limited Atonement". But in either case it brings it back to my contention that because every point is established by the point preceeding it, you can not be a True Calvinist unless you maintain the minimum perspective of all 5 points.

 

Since I normally write out things in my own perspective based on what I have learned, I must say that is the most I have ever cut and pasted anything (ever) on here. Sorry about that to but I have a 2 day old in arms. I am now a daddy 4 times over !!:wavey:

However historically what I pasted is accurate, as far as I remember.

So I forgive me here in pasting others work, since I usually get on to people for not putting things in their own words.

 

But Calvinists would say that God's ordaining of our lives is never an excuse for sin, whether sin of belief or sin of action. The fact that God in his providence may have ordained a particular matter (whether the crucifixion of Jesus or the holding of a belief) does not excuse one from holding it. Mankind is still responsible for it.

 

I think that the points stand alone exegetically. Each individual point may be related to a previous one, but a case can be made from Scripture for each point by itself.

Congrats on the new baby. My son is one year old today. It is amazing to think of a two day old.

 

Jarthur,

Sorry -- I'm not truly an historian on this issue (and my major contribution on this thread so far is to help Pastor Tim find out the basics on Calvinism per the OP). It was said earlier that Scofield was Congregational. I was baptized thus so that fact stuck in my mind.

And it is a fact that being a Calvinist (vice being called an Arminian) was desireable regardless of whether one was a 5 or 4 or 3 pointer. Instance: I've heard some say that Spurgeon was Calvinist in "claim only" and I believe it based on what I've read here as well. The whole Reformation found some degree of agreement with some of Calvinism. "Arminian" became as ad hominem "in that day."

skypair

 

Congrats Allen on the new addition to your family, as well as belated one to you Pastor Larry.

 

I believe scripture is alittle more clear than "God made me do it but I'm responsible for what I did".

One can not be responsible unless one has the ability to DO or NOT do something. I say that beause you can not have one without the other, even in a limited sense makes one completely accountable. Look them up.

We see the Calvinist definition of responsibility has been redefined from it original interpretation. How so? The Calvinist state just because man is Responsible does not mean he is Able. (Am I correct on that?) If so continue, if not correct me here.

And yet the definition for responsible states emphatically that you are only responsible as far as you are able to perform. (Paraphrase) Let me show you:

Definition of RESPONSIBLE (adj)-
1. Liable to be required to give account, as of ones actions or of the discharge of a duty or trust.
2. Involving personal accountability or ABILITY to act without guidance or superior authority
3. BEING a SOURCE or CAUSE
4. ABLE to make moral or rational decisions on one’s OWN and THEREFORE answerable for one’s behavior
5. ABLE to choose for oneself between right and wrong

Definition of ABILITY (n)
1. The quality of being able to perform: a quality that permits of facilitative achievement or accomplishments.
2. POSSESSION of the QUALITIES REQUIRED to do something or get something done.
(CAPS in definition are my emphasis added)

As I’m sure you will notice that Ability is a noun and Responsibility is an adjective (thus denoting of itself inherent ability) Responsibility is the action one takes and ability is the quality of that action taken, so by Responsible’s very definition ability is not only apparent but mandated. Its’ very definition ascribes the inherent ability for the action to be taken. So if God has given man the responsibility to choose (repent or otherwise) but the in-ability to do so on his own, you must then state his God given “responsibility” is a farce. Why? As stated over and over Responsibility is contingent on your ability. You can not have responsibility apart from ability.

 

Those two words alone (ability, responsibility) turn calvinism over on it's head, unless you make up your own definitions to what those words mean.

 

Then can you have one point without any of the others? Of course not, each point is built upon the preceeding point and is the very reason it is called a systemitized theology. It is set forth as a system of belief explaining not only what it is contending as truth but is also setting forth in that contention the next sequential step in the process.

I contend differently than you regarding the extent of the exegetical correctness you espouse, however I do contend the Calvinistic view is set forth as a systematic view building one point from another.


BTW - Thank you for the 'congradulations'. I have three others and it is still strange to see a two day old once again. (4 and half, 3 years, 1 and a half).

And congradualtion to you and your year old.

 

Thanks Web, after she gets done crying I will appreciate it more. :laugh: