Variations of Calvinism - Which Are You -- If Any

[DHK]

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

Quite true.
I believe in the depravity of man, but I am not a Calvinist, and I would say that I don't believe in any of the points of Calvin.
To believe that man is born with a sin nature is to believe in the depravity of man. But the Calvinist not only believes in the total depravity of man, more accurately he believes in what should be called "The Total Inability" of man.
Therein lies the difference. And it is a big one. It is the foundation from which all the others are built.

 

[steaver]

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.

When you say "doctrines of grace", is this the same as TULIP or are you saying something different?

I reject TULIP's version of Election, however, I absolutely agree with your statement "Salvation is all of grace because it is all of God; and because it is all of God, it is all for His glory."

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

When you say "doctrines of grace", is this the same as TULIP or are you saying something different?

I reject TULIP's version of Election, however, I absolutely agree with your statement "Salvation is all of grace because it is all of God; and because it is all of God, it is all for His glory."

I dont understand your rejection.... to me it reveals at once whether a person is biblically correct on such other doctrines as the nature and extent of sin, the bondage of the will, the full grace of God in salvation and even the presentation of the gospel.

 

[Yeshua1]

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:



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:

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).

I was an Evangelical Arminian , who moved to 4 points, as misunderstood what limited atonement actually meant, now ama 5 pointer...

Also was concerning about how one can mix that view with Dispy , but John mcArthur 'showed me the way!"

 

[salzer mtn]

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.

All the difference in the world when a person is only convinced in his head and not in his heart. 1 John 2:19 They went out from us. but they were not of us; for if they had been with us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be manifest that they were not all of us.

 

[steaver]

I dont understand your rejection.... to me it reveals at once whether a person is biblically correct on such other doctrines as the nature and extent of sin, the bondage of the will, the full grace of God in salvation and even the presentation of the gospel.

TULIP's pov on election is that God must cause a person to believe. To me, this totally goes against all the examples given in scripture where God commands the people to choose belief or unbelief. There are no doubt hundreds.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen [doth gather] her brood under [her] wings, and ye would not! " (Luke13:34)

"But with whom was he grieved forty years? [was it] not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief." (Hbr3:17-19)

"Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God." (Hbr3:12)

"Take heed" ?? Why ?? If according to TULIP there isn't anything one can do about their unbelief ??

There are just way too many examples in the scriptures of God telling the people to choose faith in God.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Quite true.
I believe in the depravity of man, but I am not a Calvinist, and I would say that I don't believe in any of the points of Calvin.
To believe that man is born with a sin nature is to believe in the depravity of man. But the Calvinist not only believes in the total depravity of man, more accurately he believes in what should be called "The Total Inability" of man.
Therein lies the difference. And it is a big one. It is the foundation from which all the others are built.

Are you saying that you don't believe in the 'P' of the TULIP? I thought most Baptists except for the General and Freewill believed that.

 

[DHK]

Are you saying that you don't believe in the 'P' of the TULIP? I thought most Baptists except for the General and Freewill believed that.

I believe in eternal security; OSAS.
I believe in the preservation of the saints.
But I don't believe in Calvin's view of the Perseverance of the saints.
I believe there is a difference.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I believe in eternal security; OSAS.
I believe in the preservation of the saints.
But I don't believe in Calvin's view of the Perseverance of the saints.
I believe there is a difference.

What do you think the difference is? If you'd rather not elaborate because it might start a nasty protracted battle, I'll understand.

 

[steaver]

Fifteen years ago God reached down and pulled me up out of the mirery pit I had gotten myself into. He called me to learn the scriptures and to teach and disciple others. He placed this passion within me and I take it seriously and with fear. I love to teach and preach but I worry at times. I do not want to teach anything that is false, I do not want to teach in error. So I am careful when I teach on certain topics that may have differing views from good God fearing Christians.


Much of what I have come to embrace concerning doctrine has been shaped through debate boards such as the BB, through searching the scriptures, referencing the Greek and Hebrew, reading many commentaries and much prayer, not to mention SS and Church.


When it comes to this issue of Election, I fully understand why those who have embraced TULIP's pov do so. I see the scriptures they embrace and why they have made their conclusion. The reason I have not embraced this pov is because of all the scriptures where God invites the people to make a choice of faith and those who choose belief are commended by God in His Word. I think that those who embrace TULIP may be forcing themselves to disregard all of these admonitions given to believe.


But when I question my own conclusions, whether I am missing something, whether TULIP could be right, I ask myself what if TULIP is correct? I'm just being honest here, when I ponder if TULIP is correct I get a feeling of depression that comes over me. Let me explain, My heart aches for those who will not believe and for those who believe for awhile but are consumed by this world's deceptions and turn away. I take every opportunity to persuade and beg people to follow Jesus. But when I ponder that TULIP might be true, I feel the passion leaving me for I begin to think passion and persuasion becomes totally pointless. Sure I can still preach, but it would be without passion, it would be without heart for me.


I have some close Christian brothers in Christ who have embraced TULIP and we talk about it oftentimes. But when I ponder agreeing with them, going over to their pov on Election, I simply just get a dying feeling inside of me. the passion I believe God has given me to preach and teach the gospel simply leaves, I can feel it going. I ask God, what is the truth Lord? I never hear anything, but I have studied the issue thoroughly, debated it, prayed on it. And the only thing I can say is what i said about what I feel inside when pondering if TULIP could be true.


Could it be that God, knowing all things that are, has no issue with some of His children embracing TULIP and some of His children rejecting it? Letting each preach the gospel itself and allowing each their own pov concerning the means (choice or cause) ? God obviously knew this topic would be of great debate among His children. Does God see this as a good thing, afterall, these issues keep His children in the Word searching the scriptures and in constant deliberation over the scriptures. Just my thoughts.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Fifteen years ago God reached down and pulled me up out of the mirery pit I had gotten myself into. He called me to learn the scriptures and to teach and disciple others. He placed this passion within me and I take it seriously and with fear. I love to teach and preach but I worry at times. I do not want to teach anything that is false, I do not want to teach in error. So I am careful when I teach on certain topics that may have differing views from good God fearing Christians.


Much of what I have come to embrace concerning doctrine has been shaped through debate boards such as the BB, through searching the scriptures, referencing the Greek and Hebrew, reading many commentaries and much prayer, not to mention SS and Church.


When it comes to this issue of Election, I fully understand why those who have embraced TULIP's pov do so. I see the scriptures they embrace and why they have made their conclusion. The reason I have not embraced this pov is because of all the scriptures where God invites the people to make a choice of faith and those who choose belief are commended by God in His Word. I think that those who embrace TULIP may be forcing themselves to disregard all of these admonitions given to believe.


But when I question my own conclusions, whether I am missing something, whether TULIP could be right, I ask myself what if TULIP is correct? I'm just being honest here, when I ponder if TULIP is correct I get a feeling of depression that comes over me. Let me explain, My heart aches for those who will not believe and for those who believe for awhile but are consumed by this world's deceptions and turn away. I take every opportunity to persuade and beg people to follow Jesus. But when I ponder that TULIP might be true, I feel the passion leaving me for I begin to think passion and persuasion becomes totally pointless. Sure I can still preach, but it would be without passion, it would be without heart for me.


I have some close Christian brothers in Christ who have embraced TULIP and we talk about it oftentimes. But when I ponder agreeing with them, going over to their pov on Election, I simply just get a dying feeling inside of me. the passion I believe God has given me to preach and teach the gospel simply leaves, I can feel it going. I ask God, what is the truth Lord? I never hear anything, but I have studied the issue thoroughly, debated it, prayed on it. And the only thing I can say is what i said about what I feel inside when pondering if TULIP could be true.


Could it be that God, knowing all things that are, has no issue with some of His children embracing TULIP and some of His children rejecting it? Letting each preach the gospel itself and allowing each their own pov concerning the means (choice or cause) ? God obviously knew this topic would be of great debate among His children. Does God see this as a good thing, afterall, these issues keep His children in the Word searching the scriptures and in constant deliberation over the scriptures. Just my thoughts.

Thank you for this thoughtful post and for sharing your heart with us.

 

[DHK]

What do you think the difference is? If you'd rather not elaborate because it might start a nasty protracted battle, I'll understand.

There have been some threads on this subject. I found one which discusses it. In the second post (which is a continuation of the OP), he says:

Paul was confident of their perseverance only because they had "fellowship in the gospel from... THE FIRST DAY UNTIL NOW." Paul tells what his confidence is based on, and that is what we should believe. If there was a group of believers who showed nothing but good fruit from the day of their conversion until now, then there would be no other choice but to have confidence in the grace of God for them.
Please take note that the Scriptures never state this kind of confidence for those who are lukewarm or "sinning saints." This promise is only for genuine, obedient believers! Paul himself thought that was "meet" or "just" for him to think this way about them (verse 7). They had given Paul absolutely no reason to doubt that they were genuine Christians!

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1906952&postcount=2

The emphasis is on perseverance. One could argue that with that emphasis Christianity would be a religion based on works and not on faith. That is where the disagreement lies. Eternal security does not give one a license to sin. But if one does not persevere he doesn't lose his salvation either. And then the question remains, "what does it mean 'not to persevere?'" One sin? A day of sin? A week of sin? It is God that knows the heart. The Lord knows them that are his. And Christ keeps our salvation in the palm of his hand.
I hope that helps.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

There have been some threads on this subject. I found one which discusses it. In the second post (which is a continuation of the OP), he says:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1906952&postcount=2

The emphasis is on perseverance. One could argue that with that emphasis Christianity would be a religion based on works and not on faith. That is where the disagreement lies. Eternal security does not give one a license to sin. But if one does not persevere he doesn't lose his salvation either. And then the question remains, "what does it mean 'not to persevere?'" One sin? A day of sin? A week of sin? It is God that knows the heart. The Lord knows them that are his. And Christ keeps our salvation in the palm of his hand.
I hope that helps.

Thank you for your post.

I still don't see that this explains the difference between Calvin's perseverance of the saints and eternal security, OSAS, or the preservation of the saints, as you put it. It seems to me that they're all saying the same thing.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

TULIP's pov on election is that God must cause a person to believe. To me, this totally goes against all the examples given in scripture where God commands the people to choose belief or unbelief. There are no doubt hundreds.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen [doth gather] her brood under [her] wings, and ye would not! " (Luke13:34)

"But with whom was he grieved forty years? [was it] not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief." (Hbr3:17-19)

"Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God." (Hbr3:12)

"Take heed" ?? Why ?? If according to TULIP there isn't anything one can do about their unbelief ??

There are just way too many examples in the scriptures of God telling the people to choose faith in God.

Ive read your post a few times ..... I'm sorry but you got it all screwed up son. 1st I would not use anything I read on boards as being correct doctrine....rather I would attempt to prove it out via scripture, the HS & good ole common sense.

Ive told you this before, fellars like Sinclair Ferguson, John Piper, Sproul, Martyn Lloyd Jones, John Preston Samuel Rutherford etc., all strong Reformed Theology believers stress the "Foundation of the Free Offering of the Gospel" is NOT ELECTION. Rather the foundation of the free offering of the gospel is Jesus Christ's promise to save all who come to Him in faith.

If your still confused, do not try to find your answers on boards, where at times its painfully obvious that there is feuding going on (and these people are not above trying to deceive you to get a soul on one side or another). Read more scripture. Pray hard on it & read books that are honest in their presentation of belief issues.

Now your concerns are that we teach that some might want salvation but could not have it because they are not one of the elect?

Here is your answer: No, the man who wants salvation already HAS it. The man who hungers and thirsts (desires it) after righteousness is a blessed character (Matt. 5: 2-6). The alien sinner doesn't want salvation, he doesn't fear God, and he doesn't love God; therefore we conclude that the man who wants salvation, fears God and loves God is a subject of grace (Rom. 3: 11, 18; I John 4: 10). So stop crying about the alien sinner....he made his choice long long ago.

 

[12strings]

There have been some threads on this subject. I found one which discusses it. In the second post (which is a continuation of the OP), he says:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1906952&postcount=2

The emphasis is on perseverance. One could argue that with that emphasis Christianity would be a religion based on works and not on faith. That is where the disagreement lies. Eternal security does not give one a license to sin. But if one does not persevere he doesn't lose his salvation either. And then the question remains, "what does it mean 'not to persevere?'" One sin? A day of sin? A week of sin? It is God that knows the heart. The Lord knows them that are his. And Christ keeps our salvation in the palm of his hand.
I hope that helps.

So would you say one who completely abandons the faith, denies beleif in Christ, is:

1. Still saved, even though they don't believe in Christ.
2. Was never saved in the first place.
3. Lost his salvation?


#1 is what charles stanley believes, and what I fear many grandparents are holding onto for their grandchildren instead of reaching out to them with the Gospel.

#2 is consistent with Perserverance of the saints...It is not that sin makes us unsaved, but that one who truly is born again will not finally abandon the faith...because the Holy Spirit Keeps him from doing so.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

So would you say one who completely abandons the faith, denies beleif in Christ, is:

1. Still saved, even though they don't believe in Christ.
2. Was never saved in the first place.
3. Lost his salvation?


#1 is what charles stanley believes, and what I fear many grandparents are holding onto for their grandchildren instead of reaching out to them with the Gospel.

#2 is consistent with Perserverance of the saints...It is not that sin makes us unsaved, but that one who truly is born again will not finally abandon the faith...because the Holy Spirit Keeps him from doing so.

How does the Holy Spirit do that? By force? See that's what I mean by the interdependence of the TULIP. How can you have the 'P' without the 'U' and the 'I', all of which deny a choice and a freedom of the will and instead substitute an overpowering of the will.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

How does the Holy Spirit do that? By force? See that's what I mean by the interdependence of the TULIP. How can you have the 'P' without the 'U' and the 'I', all of which deny a choice and a freedom of the will and instead substitute an overpowering of the will.

So you'd prefer an anthropocentric perspective, in which mankind becomes its own authority & point of reference?

 

[Thomas Helwys]

So you'd prefer an anthropocentric perspective, in which mankind becomes its own authority & point of reference?

No, that's the opposite of the Calvinist extreme. I prefer instead the Biblical perspective where man is given a choice, not forced.

 

[drfuss]

An interesting discussion.

Here are my two cents.

All the beliefs discussed here believe in God's drawing, Man's response, and Believer's security. The differences are the emphasis put on each of the three issues. This leads to different definitions and terminology, but the same basic beliefs.

Below are my ballpark estimates on the amounts of emphasis.

5 Point Calvinists
God's Drawing - 90%
Man's Response - 2%
Believer's security - 8%

Non-Calvinists
God's Drawing - 60%
Man's response - 20%
Believer's Security - 20%

Arminians
God's Drawings -60%
Man's Response - 25%
Believer's Security - 15%

The above are my ballpark estimates. I don't expect others to agree with me.

BTW, I agree with DKH that OSAS and Perseverance of the Saints are two different beliefs.

 

[salzer mtn]

No, that's the opposite of the Calvinist extreme. I prefer instead the Biblical perspective where man is given a choice, not forced.

I no more believe a person is saved because he believes Calvinist doctrine than i do if he believes Arminian doctrine. Thomas you need to run a reference on the words choose, chosen, choice in the bible and you will see not only does scripure say, choose you this day whom you will serve but scripture also say's, you have not chosen me but i have chosen you. No Calvinist believes or preaches God forces himself on anyone and God has a headlock on him to the point that the man is kicking and screaming against God all the way to heaven. God deals with his children as a father would. When they are disobedient God chastises them. A true child of God, when he is corrected by his heavenly father, will love the Lord more because he knows God corrected him in love.