Variations of Calvinism - Which Are You -- If Any

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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

He was given a choice.....from the very beginning he was given a choice. If you ever read Abraham Kuyper (a remarkable man) ..... his theology, for the most part, produced Dutch Reformed Calvinism, which my wifes family principally comes from. In any event I started reading his works. Kuypers belief in divine election led him to draw a sharp distinction between regenerate and unregenerate thought. human beings face the choice either to submit to the will of God or to pursue their own will, and this choice has implications for everything else we think or do.

Mr. K concluded that a theocentric perspective offers a proper understanding of God. And this is the prospective that I now subscribe to.

At any rate, Abe Kuyper writes, "that while God, according to the secret of His counsel, elects those who are to be saved...this same omnipotent God has made us morally responsible, so that we are lost, not because we could not be saved, but because we would not"

 

[DHK]

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.

Like I said, I believe in preservation, not perseverance.
Perseverance gives the idea that one must work for their salvation. That is not biblical.
We once had a poster, when posed with the question: "If you sinned, had a heart attack before you had a chance to repent of that sin, would you go to heaven?" Being a Calvinist and believing in perseverance, he had a hard time with that question. I don't have any problem with it. I know my salvation is secure in Christ. Do you see the difference?

Perseverance leads to the "heresy" of Lordship salvation. I consider that an unbiblical doctrine which many Calvinists believe in. It is not even logical. There is nothing that a believer can do that can dethrone Christ. He is Lord of all whether you sin or not. When a person is saved Christ becomes Lord and Savior, even if you sin. You cannot change the fact that Christ is Lord. How dare a person suggest that by sinning he can take Christ off his throne. That is ridiculous. There is no logic to that.
The concept that is put forth leads no room for sanctification of the believer. Either he is fully sanctified or he is not saved. That again is not biblical. It denies Christian growth. But with "Lordship salvation," the Calvinist can say that at the end, he has persevered. Perhaps he should read 1John 1:8,10.
The apostle Paul had a terrible struggle with the old nature; with sin. He didn't always persevere. But he was preserved. His struggle is documented in Romans 7. "The things I don't want to do, that I do." "The things I do want to do those I don't do." That is not persevering. Remember that in the context of perseverance, Paul could have had a heart attack at any point in his life--at a time when he was "doing the the things that he didn't want to do." It can happen to any of us. There are some here that condemn Jack Hyles and suggest that he wasn't even a saved man, because he "didn't persevere to the end." The end of his life was a disaster.
But was he preserved by Christ. Yes, I believe so.
That is the difference.

 

[Bro. James]

I am a one point Calvinist: T=totally depraved, with freewill in bondage to the sin nature of the first man, Adam.

After this, anything good is by the Sovereign Grace of God, which includes the faith to believe that Jesus is the Christ. Only Jesus saves, seals and keeps me through eternity. It was hard to kick against the pricks. But Jesus was faithful and longsuffering, not willing that I should perish. Jesus is faithful, even when I am not. I am pretty sure most of the above was true long before Chauvin was born.

Even so, come Lord Jesus,

Bro. James

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I am a one point Calvinist: T=totally depraved, with freewill in bondage to the sin nature of the first man, Adam.

After this, anything good is by the Sovereign Grace of God, which includes the faith to believe that Jesus is the Christ. Only Jesus saves, seals and keeps me through eternity. It was hard to kick against the pricks. But Jesus was faithful and longsuffering, not willing that I should perish. Jesus is faithful, even when I am not. I am pretty sure most of the above was true long before Chauvin was born.

Even so, come Lord Jesus,

Bro. James

Bro James, stay in Louisiana, keep kicking those pricks & we will send somebody after ya....LOL :laugh:

 

[Yeshua1]

Like I said, I believe in preservation, not perseverance.
Perseverance gives the idea that one must work for their salvation. That is not biblical.
We once had a poster, when posed with the question: "If you sinned, had a heart attack before you had a chance to repent of that sin, would you go to heaven?" Being a Calvinist and believing in perseverance, he had a hard time with that question. I don't have any problem with it. I know my salvation is secure in Christ. Do you see the difference?

Perseverance leads to the "heresy" of Lordship salvation. I consider that an unbiblical doctrine which many Calvinists believe in. It is not even logical. There is nothing that a believer can do that can dethrone Christ. He is Lord of all whether you sin or not. When a person is saved Christ becomes Lord and Savior, even if you sin. You cannot change the fact that Christ is Lord. How dare a person suggest that by sinning he can take Christ off his throne. That is ridiculous. There is no logic to that.
The concept that is put forth leads no room for sanctification of the believer. Either he is fully sanctified or he is not saved. That again is not biblical. It denies Christian growth. But with "Lordship salvation," the Calvinist can say that at the end, he has persevered. Perhaps he should read 1John 1:8,10.
The apostle Paul had a terrible struggle with the old nature; with sin. He didn't always persevere. But he was preserved. His struggle is documented in Romans 7. "The things I don't want to do, that I do." "The things I do want to do those I don't do." That is not persevering. Remember that in the context of perseverance, Paul could have had a heart attack at any point in his life--at a time when he was "doing the the things that he didn't want to do." It can happen to any of us. There are some here that condemn Jack Hyles and suggest that he wasn't even a saved man, because he "didn't persevere to the end." The end of his life was a disaster.
But was he preserved by Christ. Yes, I believe so.
That is the difference.

I hold to calvinist salvation model, but also do see the issue of our eternal security being based upon the Rock of the cross of Christ, not if I "can hang in there and endure to the very end", for He will make sure that I get there solely due to his merits, not my own!

 

[steaver]

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.........
.

??? this is actually the first time I heard of this, not sure why this is addressed to any of my comments ???

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

??? again, I don't recall protesting that some might want salvation who are not allowed to have it. I do believe that there are many who do want salvation, but do not want it on God's terms via Jesus Christ. Thus, they hear God's gospel and they choose to reject it.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Some very good posts since I posted last.

Here is my understanding and summary of Calvinism/TULIP:

The 'T' means that there is no part of us which has not been corrupted, not even our spirits. WE cannot make the first move toward God, we cannot seek God, we cannot desire to know if there is a God. The 'U' means God has elected some to salvation and either elected the rest to damnation or passed them over, and whichever group you are in, there is nothing you can do about it. God elects those to damnation simply because of His sovereignty and to demonstrate His sovereignty, in effect having create them solely to send them to an eternal hell. The 'L' means that Jesus came to save only a select number of predetermined souls, and those will be drawn by a grace that they cannot resist -- the 'I' of the TULIP. Once these elect have been drawn and regenerated by this irresistible grace, they will ('P') persevere unto the end and never be able to fall away, eternally secure in their salvation as the foreordained, unconditionally elect of of God. They cannot fall away because they do not and never had the freedom to choose, unconditionally elected and irresistibly called.

The entire TULIP flower is, to me, immoral.

 

[12strings]

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.

Here's my corrolary question for you: Do you think we will be able to sin, and even reject God completely in the New heaven & new earth?

 

[12strings]

Like I said, I believe in preservation, not perseverance.
Perseverance gives the idea that one must work for their salvation. That is not biblical.
We once had a poster, when posed with the question: "If you sinned, had a heart attack before you had a chance to repent of that sin, would you go to heaven?" Being a Calvinist and believing in perseverance, he had a hard time with that question. I don't have any problem with it. I know my salvation is secure in Christ. Do you see the difference?

Perseverance leads to the "heresy" of Lordship salvation. I consider that an unbiblical doctrine which many Calvinists believe in. It is not even logical. There is nothing that a believer can do that can dethrone Christ. He is Lord of all whether you sin or not. When a person is saved Christ becomes Lord and Savior, even if you sin. You cannot change the fact that Christ is Lord. How dare a person suggest that by sinning he can take Christ off his throne. That is ridiculous. There is no logic to that.
The concept that is put forth leads no room for sanctification of the believer. Either he is fully sanctified or he is not saved. That again is not biblical. It denies Christian growth. But with "Lordship salvation," the Calvinist can say that at the end, he has persevered. Perhaps he should read 1John 1:8,10.
The apostle Paul had a terrible struggle with the old nature; with sin. He didn't always persevere. But he was preserved. His struggle is documented in Romans 7. "The things I don't want to do, that I do." "The things I do want to do those I don't do." That is not persevering. Remember that in the context of perseverance, Paul could have had a heart attack at any point in his life--at a time when he was "doing the the things that he didn't want to do." It can happen to any of us. There are some here that condemn Jack Hyles and suggest that he wasn't even a saved man, because he "didn't persevere to the end." The end of his life was a disaster.
But was he preserved by Christ. Yes, I believe so.
That is the difference.

1. I'm not familiar with Jack Hyles...I assume he had some scandal...I will google him.

2. You still did not answer my question, BTW. Can a person completely abandon belief in Christ and still be saved?

3. Also, Is there any pattern of sin that would lead you to think a proffessing Christian might not really be a true Christian.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Here's my corrolary question for you: Do you think we will be able to sin, and even reject God completely in the New heaven & new earth?

I don't know. Do you know? To speculate on conditions there is just that, speculation. I am more concerned with getting there, for me and others. And Calvinism says there is absolutely no chance for a large percent of mankind to get there.

 

[DHK]

1. I'm not familiar with Jack Hyles...I assume he had some scandal...I will google him.

2. You still did not answer my question, BTW. Can a person completely abandon belief in Christ and still be saved?

Then was he a Christian in the first place? That would be my question.
I know of a man that attended a Baptist church for a number of years, was faithful, and acted as well as any other faithful Baptist would. He went through four years of Bible college and graduated. He currently is now the leader of a Sikh community--a full fledged baptized Sikh.
Do you know that the greatest majority of the J.W.'s were at one time Baptists?
Do you see the testimonies here and there of Baptists leaving the "faith" and going to the RCC?
There is something wrong. I would question the salvation of each and every one of them.
Was it not John Wesley that went to America and was involved in evangelism, the winning of the lost to the Lord, when he himself was not saved? There are many pretenders. God alone knows the heart. One of the biggest failings of Christians today is to presume that they know the hearts of their fellow man, when they don't. That again, is where Lordship salvation fails.

3. Also, Is there any pattern of sin that would lead you to think a proffessing Christian might not really be a true Christian.

Only God knows the heart.
How many of us today would have automatically consigned the person mentioned in 1Cor.5:1-5 to the realm of an unbeliever, because of his "way of life"? But Paul addresses him as a "brother." He was a believer in spite of his on-going relationship in a state of incest, a relationship and sin so horrid that not even the Gentiles committed it. Yet he was saved.
The question I must often ask is:
Is this professed Christian actually saved? Or
Is this professed Christian badly backslidden?
Only God knows the heart; it is my duty to counsel such a person on a one to one basis according to his sin problem. I can't make such a general call like you want me to do. It is God that knows the heart, not me.

If Lot had lived in this century, whom the Lord called just, you would have condemned him also. After all which Christian among us would offer their virgin daughters to a howling mob of homosexuals to abuse all night? Is that the mark of a saved man? The Lord said he was just and righteous. Who am I to question God.

Some of the Corinthians had listened to false teachers in their church and were beginning to deny the resurrection. So Paul answers them in 1Cor.15. What doctrinal heresy these people had fallen into! Perhaps we would just pass them off as unsaved. I can't judge the heart. The Lord knows them that are his.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't know. Do you know? To speculate on conditions there is just that, speculation. I am more concerned with getting there, for me and others. And Calvinism says there is absolutely no chance for a large percent of mankind to get there.

Actually, it was JESUS himself who stated that MANY will take the broad road to destruction, FEW will take the narrow road to life...

Are you disputing that jesus knew what he said here then?

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Actually, it was JESUS himself who stated that MANY will take the broad road to destruction, FEW will take the narrow road to life...

Are you disputing that jesus knew what he said here then?

Are you saying that Jesus taught TULIP?

There is a difference in saying that many will take the broad road to destruction and that many will take it because they have to!

 

[Yeshua1]

Are you saying that Jesus taught TULIP?

There is a difference in saying that many will take the broad road to destruction and that many will take it because they have to!

No, Apostle paul taught that!

And ALL of us are born as sinners, who without God intercepting and changing our minds, will get on that broad road, as it is just the way we trhink as sinners!

 

[steaver]

No, Apostle paul taught that!

And ALL of us are born as sinners, who without God intercepting and changing our minds, will get on that broad road, as it is just the way we trhink as sinners!

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not!"

 

[Bronconagurski]

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?

Why does how one is saved determine whether one believes in the keeping power of God? In other words, can you not believe that man has a choice to accept or reject the grace of God for salvation, but if you accept, you are sealed with the Holy Spirit, thus kept by the power of God? I can't think of a reason why that would not be possible, but I am open to your thoughts.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

No, Apostle paul taught that!

And ALL of us are born as sinners, who without God intercepting and changing our minds, will get on that broad road, as it is just the way we trhink as sinners!

Oh, so Paul was the first Calvinist instead of Jesus. Thanks for setting me straight on that.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Why does how one is saved determine whether one believes in the keeping power of God? In other words, can you not believe that man has a choice to accept or reject the grace of God for salvation, but if you accept, you are sealed with the Holy Spirit, thus kept by the power of God? I can't think of a reason why that would not be possible, but I am open to your thoughts.

Kept by the power of God: Yes, I believe that. Kept against one's will: No, I don't believe that.

 

[Iconoclast]

Like I said, I believe in preservation, not perseverance.
Perseverance gives the idea that one must work for their salvation. That is not biblical.
We once had a poster, when posed with the question: "If you sinned, had a heart attack before you had a chance to repent of that sin, would you go to heaven?" Being a Calvinist and believing in perseverance, he had a hard time with that question. I don't have any problem with it. I know my salvation is secure in Christ. Do you see the difference?

Perseverance leads to the "heresy" of Lordship salvation. I consider that an unbiblical doctrine which many Calvinists believe in. It is not even logical. There is nothing that a believer can do that can dethrone Christ. He is Lord of all whether you sin or not. When a person is saved Christ becomes Lord and Savior, even if you sin. You cannot change the fact that Christ is Lord. How dare a person suggest that by sinning he can take Christ off his throne. That is ridiculous. There is no logic to that.
The concept that is put forth leads no room for sanctification of the believer. Either he is fully sanctified or he is not saved. That again is not biblical. It denies Christian growth. But with "Lordship salvation," the Calvinist can say that at the end, he has persevered. Perhaps he should read 1John 1:8,10.
The apostle Paul had a terrible struggle with the old nature; with sin. He didn't always persevere. But he was preserved. His struggle is documented in Romans 7. "The things I don't want to do, that I do." "The things I do want to do those I don't do." That is not persevering. Remember that in the context of perseverance, Paul could have had a heart attack at any point in his life--at a time when he was "doing the the things that he didn't want to do." It can happen to any of us. There are some here that condemn Jack Hyles and suggest that he wasn't even a saved man, because he "didn't persevere to the end." The end of his life was a disaster.
But was he preserved by Christ. Yes, I believe so.
That is the difference.

DHK,

You have no understanding of this whatsoever.We know that by this statement:

Perseverance gives the idea that one must work for their salvation

No one who understands the biblical teaching of perseverance would make this bogus claim.

 

[Bronconagurski]

Kept by the power of God: Yes, I believe that. Kept against one's will: No, I don't believe that.

How can you say kept against one's will when one had accepted the offer of grace? Are you saying that once saved, a person will always change their mind? I am not following. I believe u to a point. I believe that no one would ever be saved if God the Father did not send God the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgement. But I don't believe that man does not have a choice to accept the gift of God, or walk away. Once man has accepted, and the Holy Spirit takes up residence, then how can man ever walk away then? In 30 years I have never wanted to walk away from God, so I am not understanding how I have been kept against my will. I was there when God moved in, and I can tell you, salvation is by grace thru faith, but the peace of God that stirred my soul is indescribable. Why would I ever walk away from that? Some seemingly walk away after making a confession. I do not believe the confession was ever real, but God will be their judge, not me. No, I am not following what you mean, but that might be because I can't think too well.