Variations of Calvinism - Which Are You -- If Any

[Crabtownboy]

I did not want this thread to be limited just to those of us who are Baptist. So, others please join in.

I get the feeling that many who call themselves Calvinist seem to believe that Calvinist is monolithic, that is there is only one form of Calvinism, only one Calvinist school of thought. That is an error. So I wonder how the good Calvinist folk on the BB would label themselves.

Types of Calvinism:

• Five Point Calvinist
• Four Point Calvinist
• Hyper-Calvinist
• Neo-Calvinist
• Christian Reconstructionist
• New-Calvinist

All these are recognized Calvinist positions. Which, if any, are you?

So far all the arguments on the Board by Calvinists have lead me to believe they are in error on some points. I did not feel this way when I joined the board ... but, as I said, the Calvinists have convinced me they are wrong.

Please join in calmly, rationally and with thoughtful answers.

 

[steaver]

Personally, I don't think there should be extra word labels given to Christians who just happen to agree with Calvin's preaching on any given point. He was simply a Christian who gave his pov based on what he believed the scriptures taught on certain subjects. Where he is found to be in error will be burned at his judgment and where he is found to be correct will be added to his reward.

What I find rather revealing concerning TULIP preachers is that the sermons they preach proclaim the Arminian pov. And why is this? Because to their credit they preach exactly what the scriptures shout out, which is CHOOSE this day whom ye will serve! John Macarthur is a great example of this. I believe it is the Holy Spirit compelling them to preach the truth regardless of what they might have come to believe concerning this theology called TULIP.

 

[Salty]

Personally, I don't think there should be extra word labels given to Christians who just happen to ....

Note to Crabby - hope this doesn't get off OP - But

I don't have a problem with extra word labels.

If a church/Christian is self labels as:
5 point Calvinist
King Jams Only
Pre-Trib
Legalistic
Fundamentalists
Emerging
Open and Affirming
and ect

A label will give me the general background of the church/individual

In addition, for most of the items on the list above - would be the emphasis one puts on a belief.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It is absurd to believe a Doctrine of Grace believer is holds an Arminian point of view.

Next, what is a "New" Calvinist?

 

[steaver]

It is absurd to believe a Doctrine of Grace believer is holds an Arminian point of view.

I didn't say that, I said in essence that the TULIP believers may hold a Calvinistic pov, but they always preach the Arminian pov. They can't help it, they must preach the Word!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I didn't say that, I said in essence that the TULIP believers may hold a Calvinistic pov, but they always preach the Arminian pov. They can't help it, they must preach the Word!

Prove that then.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Here is a list of some types -- FYI, attached below

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm

 

[steaver]

Prove that then.

I gave you an example John MacArthur's sermon. I'm just saying I never heard TULIP preached to a congregation, niether on tv nor the radio. Have you? Why is that?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I gave you an example John MacArthur's sermon. I'm just saying I never heard TULIP preached to a congregation, niether on tv nor the radio. Have you? Why is that?

Yes...and in a series of sermons.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Without getting into any arguments, I'll be content to answer the OP...

I'm Anglican (but used to be Southern Baptist). I don't consider myself a Calvinist AT ALL--well, maybe a 1-point Calvinist (the 'T' part).

I guess I'm 'Arminian' in the sense of more or less sharing the views of Arminius himself, and not necessarily in the sense of MANY (but by not means all) who happen to use that moniker nowadays, but who may actually be semi-Pelagian (or worse). If you want to put an OLDER label on me, then call me a 'Semi-Augustinian'. :smilewinkgrin:

If you want to know my views on grace/predestination (etc) consult the following:
(1) Second Council of Orange (AD 529)
(2) Thirty Nine Articles of Religion (AD 1571)
(3) Articles of the Remonstrance (AD 1610)

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Try any of these:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/?s=TULIP

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Instead of posting these question in another thread about Calvinism that I just read, I'll try it here. Aren't all the five points of Calvinism of necessity interdependent? That is, I don't see how it is possible to believe even one of them without believing all of them and be consistent. Now I realize some Classical Arminians believe/d in total depravity and allowed for believing in perseverance of the saints, but this seems to me inconsistent with the general Arminian position.

All through school I posed this question, and no one seemed to be able to give a satisfactory answer. So, I just know someone here will be able to give that.

Okay, so here goes: How is it possible to believe the 'P' of the TULIP and disbelieve the other petals? Doesn't the belief in the 'P' necessitate also the belief in the 'U' (Unconditional Election), for example?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Instead of posting these question in another thread about Calvinism that I just read, I'll try it here. Aren't all the five points of Calvinism of necessity interdependent? That is, I don't see how it is possible to believe even one of them without believing all of them and be consistent. Now I realize some Classical Arminians believe/d in total depravity and allowed for believing in perseverance of the saints, but this seems to me inconsistent with the general Arminian position.

All through school I posed this question, and no one seemed to be able to give a satisfactory answer. So, I just know someone here will be able to give that.

Okay, so here goes: How is it possible to believe the 'P' of the TULIP and disbelieve the other petals? Doesn't the belief in the 'P' necessitate also the belief in the 'U' (Unconditional Election), for example?

I cannot answer your question. I do consider it an interesting question. I would like to see it calmly, rationally discussed.

The Calvinist on the BB have convinced me that they are in error.

Blessings.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Instead of posting these question in another thread about Calvinism that I just read, I'll try it here. Aren't all the five points of Calvinism of necessity interdependent? That is, I don't see how it is possible to believe even one of them without believing all of them and be consistent. Now I realize some Classical Arminians believe/d in total depravity and allowed for believing in perseverance of the saints, but this seems to me inconsistent with the general Arminian position.

All through school I posed this question, and no one seemed to be able to give a satisfactory answer. So, I just know someone here will be able to give that.

Okay, so here goes: How is it possible to believe the 'P' of the TULIP and disbelieve the other petals? Doesn't the belief in the 'P' necessitate also the belief in the 'U' (Unconditional Election), for example?

I do agree that the ULI tend to hang together, along with the P in my opinion.

 

[12strings]

I did not want this thread to be limited just to those of us who are Baptist. So, others please join in.

I get the feeling that many who call themselves Calvinist seem to believe that Calvinist is monolithic, that is there is only one form of Calvinism, only one Calvinist school of thought. That is an error. So I wonder how the good Calvinist folk on the BB would label themselves.

Types of Calvinism:

• Five Point Calvinist
• Four Point Calvinist
• Hyper-Calvinist
• Neo-Calvinist
• Christian Reconstructionist
• New-Calvinist

All these are recognized Calvinist positions. Which, if any, are you?

So far all the arguments on the Board by Calvinists have lead me to believe they are in error on some points. I did not feel this way when I joined the board ... but, as I said, the Calvinists have convinced me they are wrong.

Please join in calmly, rationally and with thoughtful answers.

1. I would say I'm closest to a 4-point Calvinist, or amaraldian. I believe the arguements for and agianst Limited Atonement are mostly semantics, both sides believe Jesus' death was sufficient for all, applied only to those who believe.

2. I'm not sure what the theological differences are between 5-point calvinists, neo-calvinist, or new calvinist. Here's what I found:

Although neo-Calvinists (aka New Calvinists) and neocalvinists (aka Kuyperians) tend to share a broad range of theological positions, the differences often arise in their emphases and language. While New Calvinists tend to focus on renewal of the local church and use terms associated with traditional Calvinism, the Kuyperians generally aim at cultural renewal and use jargon whose connotations are specific to the movement (e.g., sphere sovereignty).

I believe both of these would also be 5-point calvinists. I think that the "new calvinism" is simply a descriptor of those young people who have recently embraced the "old calvinism."

3. I also had to look up Christian reconstructionism, and found this basic idea:

Christian Reconstructionists are usually postmillennialists and followers of the presuppositional apologetics of Cornelius Van Til. They tend to support a decentralized political order resulting in laissez-faire capitalism.[2]

So these would also generally be 5-point calvinists who adopt a certain political stance, correct? (would this also equate with neo-calvinism?)

4. Finally, While mainstream calvinists do use the term hyper-calvinism to refer to those who negate the need for evangelism, or personal faith...It is my understanding that there are zero groups that actually call themselves hyper-calvinists, rather calling themselves Primitive Baptists, or true calvinists (as opposed to those who mix in human stuff).

 

[12strings]

Instead of posting these question in another thread about Calvinism that I just read, I'll try it here. Aren't all the five points of Calvinism of necessity interdependent? That is, I don't see how it is possible to believe even one of them without believing all of them and be consistent. Now I realize some Classical Arminians believe/d in total depravity and allowed for believing in perseverance of the saints, but this seems to me inconsistent with the general Arminian position.

All through school I posed this question, and no one seemed to be able to give a satisfactory answer. So, I just know someone here will be able to give that.

Okay, so here goes: How is it possible to believe the 'P' of the TULIP and disbelieve the other petals? Doesn't the belief in the 'P' necessitate also the belief in the 'U' (Unconditional Election), for example?

It would be consistent, I think, to say something like this: God allows men freedom to either accept or reject his son. He does not unconditionally Elect and irresistably draw those who are saved. But he does, based on Eph. 1 and other passages, upon Belief & conversion, indwell a person with his Holy Spirit which seals them and protects them from complete apostacy. They might compare this to people not sinning in heaven, because there is something that keeps us from doing so.

They might also explain it this way: Adam was created good, but with the ability to sin. Humans after adam are born unable to not sin. Believers after conversion are able not to sin, but also able to sin, but kept from abandoning Christ. Believers in heaven will be unable to sin.

Of course for me, I would be doing the same thing with Limited Atonement.

 

[12strings]

I do agree that the ULI tend to hang together, along with the P in my opinion.

What about the "T"? IF one rejects the ULIP, then their understanding of the "T" is obviously different than the calvinists understanding.

 

[Jerome]

Christian Reconstructionist Calvinism

Rousas John Rushdoony (April 25, 1916 – February 8, 2001) was a Calvinist philosopher, historian, and theologian and is widely credited as the father of Christian Reconstructionism

He maintained that Calvinistic Christianity provided the intellectual roots for the American Revolution and had thus always had an influential impact in American history.

Rushdoony's thought has influenced some activists in the Neo-Confederate movement

he proposed that Old Testament law should be applied to modern society and that there should be a Christian theonomy, a concept developed in his colleague Greg Bahnsen's controversial tome Theonomy in Christian Ethics, which Rushdoony heartily endorsed. In the Institutes, Rushdoony supported the reinstatement of the Mosaic law's penal sanctions.

Furthermore, Rushdoony has been accused of Holocaust denial and racism. Rushdoony believed that interracial marriage, which he referred to as "unequal yoking", should be made illegal.

Sound familar?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Christian Reconstructionist Calvinism










Sound familar?

no it doesnt....care to elaborate?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I cannot answer your question. I do consider it an interesting question. I would like to see it calmly, rationally discussed.

The Calvinist on the BB have convinced me that they are in error.

Blessings.

Ive always told my immediate family, that the doctrines if grace stand or fall together, and together they point to one central truth..... IE., Salvation is all of grace because it is all of God; and because it is all of God, it is all for His glory.

So if your trying to split them up & say that I am for this but this I wont agree to then you still haven't come to total understanding. Then you need to go back & study & pray more until you gain enlightenment.