What Are The Differences In Calvinists?

[PappaBear]

I think of Spurgeon as a reasoned Calvinist. He was called an Arminian by others of his day. In turn, he would refer to Hyper-Cals as "antinomians." D. James Kennedy would be a good example of an evangelistic Calvinist.

Are the lines of distinction in Calvinist flavors only "Calvinist" versus "HyperCalvinist"? Or is there a wider range of differences? If so, please explain. If not, what is the difference between one who is just a Calvinist, and the one who is a "HyperCalvinist"?

 

[PappaBear]

I believe that there is a wide range of differences between those who call themselves "Calvinists" or "Reformed." It actually depends on how far you go in defining the different points in Calvinism/Arminianism.

1. There is the Reasoned Calvinist.
This is the one who will see The Lordship of Jesus Christ exalted in scripture and will then weigh in on the side of the Bible. To him, Calvinism is not the be all and end all of theology, but a monikor that indicates where he will stand in relation to God's sovereignity. But the reasoned Calvinist is not afraid to cast aside or question Calvinistic icons when the Bible states something completely different.

2. There is the Evangelistic Calvinist
This is the Calvinist who "plays down" his Calvinism. It is not a major deal with him. He will use the Calvinistic Theological system as a framework for doctrinal teaching, but will witness to the lost without regard. They will gladly give open invitations, and seek the salvation of souls.

3. There is the Un-initiated Calvinist
This is actually a "Calvinist-in-training." Many fall into this category. Usually, they had a pastor, or teacher, or school that told them they were Calvinist, and so they are. They have never really studied it or thought it through, yet. They are aware of a few of the basic ideas and concepts, but there is little depth or expansion.

4. There is the Progressive Calvinist
This is what I would consider a "convert" to Calvinism, usually out of a Non-Cal background, a former fundamentalist. Bible College students and zealous new converts are prime candidates for this kind. In their spiritual immaturity, they thirst to master theology. They strike upon some of the systematized logic of Calvinism with its pat answers and compacting God into a can, and enjoy the rhetoric and elitism that it brings.

5. There is the True Calvinist.
He remains loyal to the Institutes, and "toes the line" on all things Calvin. He is exlusivist, not fellowshipping with any Non-Cal, nor would he be caught dead worshipping with them or reading their books in anything but a critical fashion. He is aware of the arguments, and confirmed in his views of predestination and election, and the doctrines of grace. He is practiced at defending and defining his theology.

6. There is the Hyper-Calvinist
This one believes that Calvinism is THE gospel. He makes Calvinism a test of faith. He has erred to the point of heresy, reducing salvation to nothing more than mere rationalism -- a set of doctrines and creeds. To him, all Calvinists are saved, and all non-Cals are at the very best highly suspect.

 

[Dr. Bob]

You forgot the "Wish I could be a calvinist" category of those who know and understand the truth of God's Word, but are fearful to be so labeled!

I've met many of these "closet calvos".

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
You forgot the "Wish I could be a calvinist" category of those who know and understand the truth of God's Word, but are fearful to be so labeled!

I've met many of these "closet calvos".

There is yet another category, those of us who refuse to align ourselves under a doctrine made by man! The "Anti-nomians". Those of us who are "non-hyphenated" and unabashedly "CHRISTIAN" because we adhere to the teachings of Jesus, the CHRIST!

 

[Gina B]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
You forgot the "Wish I could be a calvinist" category of those who know and understand the truth of God's Word, but are fearful to be so labeled!

I've met many of these "closet calvos".

And sometimes rightfully so. It's no easy matter to find a nearby reformed church for so many, and all you have to do is listen to the reactions of non-cals on this forum to get a taste of how one can be treated.
Gina

 

[PappaBear]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
You forgot the "Wish I could be a calvinist" category of those who know and understand the truth of God's Word, but are fearful to be so labeled!

I've met many of these "closet calvos".

Hello, Dr. Bob! Nice pic. Wish I looked that nice.

Considering the superiority attitude of the elitist group known as Calvinists (for instance, just count how many times "I'm right" appears in one of Pastor Larry's posts), I doubt seriously there are very many in that category. But you may be right, no doubt that is a category, nonetheless.

Let me ask you a question, Dr. Bob. Where would you categorize one claims to be calvinist, but affirms that repentance and faith are required conditions for salvation?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
There is yet another category, those of us who refuse to align ourselves under a doctrine made by man! The "Anti-nomians". Those of us who are "non-hyphenated" and unabashedly "CHRISTIAN" because we adhere to the teachings of Jesus, the CHRIST!

This is the group called Calvinist by its detractors. I would prefer to be called a Christian, but that name has become associated with people who believe other things. The early Calvinists were simply called Christians, because they believed and taught the Scriptures.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by PappaBear:
Considering the superiority attitude of the elitist group known as Calvinists (for instance, just count how many times "I'm right" appears in one of Pastor Larry's posts),

Can you find a place where I have said, "I'm right"? Please search for us and post it. I would appreicate it. Of course, you probably won't actually find that because I don't think I have actually said. I have, in different words, acknowledged that I do know what we believe better than you do. That is not superiority any more than you claiming to know what you believe is superior. I would hope you know what you believe better than I do, and I would hope that you would acknowledge that I know what I believe better than you do.

Let me ask you a question, Dr. Bob. Where would you categorize one claims to be calvinist, but affirms that repentance and faith are required conditions for salvation?

You think you will get a different answer from him than you will from most other calvinists??

 

[russell55]

Let me ask you a question, Dr. Bob. Where would you categorize one claims to be calvinist, but affirms that repentance and faith are required conditions for salvation?

That person would be what they claim they are--a calvinist. That is the calvinist position.
Repentance and faith are conditions for justification. No one is save apart from repentance and faith.

Here is a page you might find imformative: A list of common misunderstanding about calvinism

See numbers 19 and 23 in particular.

 

[PappaBear]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by PappaBear:
Considering the superiority attitude of the elitist group known as Calvinists (for instance, just count how many times "I'm right" appears in one of Pastor Larry's posts),

Can you find a place where I have said, "I'm right"? Please search for us and post it. I would appreicate it. Of course, you probably won't actually find that because I don't think I have actually said. </font>[/QUOTE]

I think I can accomodate you. You certain that you will appreciate it and ACKNOWLEDGE it this time? The last time you asked me such Tom Foolery while you lived in your superior attitude of denial, when I posted it you just passed it off as a typo and claimed I was personally attacking you and using it in place of a substantial answer. And I only answered due to your provoking request, and had posted a lengthy exposition of the fallacy of your use of scriptures which do not apply (notice the lack of double negative there).

Well .. here goes.

Posted by Pastor Larry November 28, 2003 09:33 AM: Who cares whether you agree?? You don't like Calvinism so of course you are not going to agree. But I am still right and if you took time to study you would know that.

Now, there it is as you asked and as you claimed probably couldn't be found. As I said, you can not even remember what you just posted yesterday. Go ahead with your expected smarmy response.

 

[PappaBear]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />PappaBear: Let me ask you a question, Dr. Bob. Where would you categorize one claims to be calvinist, but affirms that repentance and faith are required conditions for salvation?

You think you will get a different answer from him than you will from most other calvinists?? </font>[/QUOTE]Dr. Bob and I have a history and have discussed this issue before. Yes, I expect a dfferent answer from him than from you. *IF* he answers.

 

[PappaBear]

Originally posted by russell55:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />PappaBear: Let me ask you a question, Dr. Bob. Where would you categorize one claims to be calvinist, but affirms that repentance and faith are required conditions for salvation?

That person would be what they claim they are--a calvinist. That is the calvinist position.
Repentance and faith are conditions for justification. No one is save apart from repentance and faith.

Here is a page you might find imformative: A list of common misunderstanding about calvinism

See numbers 19 and 23 in particular. </font>[/QUOTE]You should see number 5 in particular.

 

[PappaBear]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Yelsew:
There is yet another category, those of us who refuse to align ourselves under a doctrine made by man! The "Anti-nomians". Those of us who are "non-hyphenated" and unabashedly "CHRISTIAN" because we adhere to the teachings of Jesus, the CHRIST!

This is the group called Calvinist by its detractors. I would prefer to be called a Christian, but that name has become associated with people who believe other things. The early Calvinists were simply called Christians, because they believed and taught the Scriptures. </font>[/QUOTE]Hmmmm.. I wasn't aware that Calvin was so old that he was one of the original Christians in Antioch? But at any rate, John Calvin was just a depraved man. "CALVINISM" is a religion taken from his systemization of doctrine represented by his work The Institutes of the Christian Religion , a fatalistic collection of writings that can be as much considered the Calvinist bible as the writings of Joseph Smith can be the Mormon one. The very fact it goes by the name of its progenitor -- John Calvin --&gt; Calvinism -- yes, it is a religion made by man. In that regard it shares one of its many similarites with what is otherwise known as "Russelism"

 

[russell55]

You should see number 5 in particular.

Which says:

5) Calvinists do believe in man's responsibility, but deny his ability to repent and believe the gospel. The two terms are not synonymous. Calvinists believe that man's inability to repent and believe are caused by his own sin ... not any positive imposition on God's part.

I suppose it would have been clearer if he had said "natural man" instead of just plain old "man". Men repent and believe when they are enabled/drawn by the Holy Spirit.

But I have a feeling you already understood that......

And hey, you'll be able to knock me over with a feather if Dr. Bob disagrees with the statement that people need to repent and believe in order to be saved.......

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by PappaBear:
You certain that you will appreciate it and ACKNOWLEDGE it this time? The last time you asked me such Tom Foolery while you lived in your superior attitude of denial, when I posted it you just passed it off as a typo and claimed I was personally attacking you and using it in place of a substantial answer.

Do you really think I intended a double negative thinking it was proper???? Surely you know better than that. I was actually looking for an actual grammatical problem, which you didn't really post. We all make typos. I am sure that if you sort through my 7000+ posts, you will find plenty. You and I both know your attack on my grammar was personal and prejudicial. The way that we know that is that it had nothing to do with what was being discussed in this forum. You brought my typing and proofreading skills into this discussion when they had no place in it. I rarely use the latter skill anyway. It ain't not worth the time . So in the future, deal with the actual arguments.

Well .. here goes.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Posted by Pastor Larry November 28, 2003 09:33 AM: Who cares whether you agree?? You don't like Calvinism so of course you are not going to agree. But I am still right and if you took time to study you would know that.

Now, there it is as you asked and as you claimed probably couldn't be found. As I said, you can not even remember what you just posted yesterday. Go ahead with your expected smarmy response. </font>[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]Hah hah ... you failed. You said I said, "I am right." Then you cite my quotation as "I am still right." So I still didn't say what you said I said, and since you want to play technicalities, I will accomodate you.

But seriously, go back and look at what this was referring to and compare that to what I said in asking you to post this. When you compare the context in which it was said, you will find that I said I am still right about what Calvinists believe, which was contention from the beginning. To my knowledge, the only thing I have said I am right about is knowing what I believe. You tried to tell me I was wrong about what Calvinism believes. It is strange to me that you know what I believe better than I know what I believe. In fact, not only is it strange; it is preposterous. That is why I said I am right. To my knowledge, I have not unequivocally said I am right about this particular issue of Scripture. I do believe that I am, but I recognize that I am a fallible human. You are the same. Surely you are not deceived into thinking you are infallibly right on this issue. I certainly hope not.

I have noticed that you have a strange way of twisting words and yanking them around to fit your notions of how you would like to argue a particular point. I content that is unethical and the discussion about God's word, whichever side you come down on, deserves better. I hope you will put that method aside. If you are confused about something someone says, then ask for clarification.

You think you are right in your doctrine; I think I am right. There is no problem with that. If we didn't think we were right, we shouldn't be discussing it at this level. The fact is that when you accuse me of saying "I am right," that is only offensive to you becuase you think you are right. I understand that; I have no problem with it.

I simply wish you would answer my arguments the way that I put them forth, rather than making up my arguments and then answering those. That was my request from the beginning, indeed from the beginning of this forum. If you are going to talk about your opponents, use your opponents actual arguments; don't twist their positions to fit your own mind.

So here, you have struck out in your attempt, instead proving what I already said above, that I said I was right about knowing what Calvinism in general believes. On that issue, I am right (there ... quote that one) and you are wrong. But thanks for playing

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by PappaBear:
Hmmmm.. I wasn't aware that Calvin was so old that he was one of the original Christians in Antioch?

Hmmmm ... I wasn't aware anyone said that. Perhaps you were thinking of another post when you quoted mine because I know I didn't say that. I can read the plain words on the page and see that I said nothing of the sort.

You show us yet again that you are unwilling to use people's words with integrity. That is disappointing. Theological discussions deserve better than that kind of tripe.

But at any rate, John Calvin was just a depraved man. "CALVINISM" is a religion taken from his systemization of doctrine represented by his work The Institutes of the Christian Religion , a fatalistic collection of writings that can be as much considered the Calvinist bible as the writings of Joseph Smith can be the Mormon one. The very fact it goes by the name of its progenitor -- John Calvin --&gt; Calvinism -- yes, it is a religion made by man. In that regard it shares one of its many similarites with what is otherwise known as "Russelism"

You face the same problem with "arminianism." It has the name of a man. These two systems are opposed to one another, and every short of open theists and atheists, believe in one or the other. You condemn yourself with this argument. (To head your argument off at the pass, "biblicist" means nothing. Both sides argue that they are the biblicists.)

The fact is that "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" are names attached to a set of beliefs. Both sets of beliefs predate the men whose names got attached to them. Neither one sprang on the scene in the Reformation era. Both existed for more than a millennia before that. These names are simply the ones that got attached to it.

However, we can see from reading the words of Christ, Paul, Peter, and John that they were calvinistic long before any of them except Christ knew what a calvinist was.

In short, you made a ridiculous response to my assertion about the name Christian. My point is that calvinism is not antiChristian or antibiblical. A Calvinist can be a Christian just like an Arminian can be. It's just easier for us because we didn't have to do anything to become one ...

 

[PappaBear]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
You face the same problem with "arminianism." It has the name of a man. These two systems are opposed to one another, and every short of open theists and atheists, believe in one or the other. You condemn yourself with this argument. (To head your argument off at the pass, "biblicist" means nothing. Both sides argue that they are the biblicists.)

Not a problem for me, and no, I do not condemn myself. I refer to myself as a Lordshipper. You Followers of John Calvin (ever look up the suffix "-ist"?) would like for people to believe that you can only "believe in one or the other," but that is not the case. So, no, I do not condemn myself with this argument, because I have never claimed myself to be a member of a group that takes on anyone's name. I do not claim Jacob Arminus, nor do I claim John Calvin, Joseph Smith, or CT Russell.

Pastor Larry: The fact is that "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" are names attached to a set of beliefs. Both sets of beliefs predate the men whose names got attached to them. Neither one sprang on the scene in the Reformation era. Both existed for more than a millennia before that. These names are simply the ones that got attached to it.

The fact is that Arminianism resulted from the Remonstrants' systemization of the doctrines taught by a former Calvinist, Jacob Arminius. Not to be outdone, The Calvinists developed their 5 points as a reaction to those of the Arminians. The facts are that these doctrines do not exist in a systemized form to be labeled prior to the Synod of Dort in 1618.

Pastor Larry: However, we can see from reading the words of Christ, Paul, Peter, and John that they were calvinistic long before any of them except Christ knew what a calvinist was.

Not hardly. In fact, I think personally that you should repent of your blasphemy in claiming that the Lord Jesus Christ would be a "Calvinist" (Follower of John Calvin).

 

[PappaBear]

Originally posted by russell55:

I suppose it would have been clearer if he had said "natural man" instead of just plain old "man". Men repent and believe when they are enabled/drawn by the Holy Spirit.

But I have a feeling you already understood that......

For the Calvinist, any repentance and belief is not a condition of salvation, but a consequence of it. They are so intent to excise regeneration from salvation. To them, God regenerates which makes men repent and believe, etc. To them, if God did not regenerate, then men would not repent or believe. So, is salvation conditional upon repentance and belief for the Calvinist? In view of their errant doctrines regarding regeneration, certainly not. It is more appropriately a consequence of regeneration as far as they are concerned. Non-hypers will be quick to tell you that no man who has been regenerated has ever not repented and believed (gotten saved). This makes repentance and belief not a choice for Christ to extend ("except ye repent," "for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins"), but more of a sign to others that this one is a Christian.

And hey, you'll be able to knock me over with a feather if Dr. Bob disagrees with the statement that people need to repent and believe in order to be saved.......

You could blow me over with a puff of wind if he agrees with any statement specifying "conditions" to salvation. But that is up to Dr. Bob to speak for himself. I, with you, can just wait and see if he decides to answer.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by PappaBear:
So, no, I do not condemn myself with this argument, because I have never claimed myself to be a member of a group that takes on anyone's name. I do not claim Jacob Arminus, nor do I claim John Calvin, Joseph Smith, or CT Russell.

But your position belies your claim. You are an arminian whether you like it or not. The beliefs you hold are what are known as arminian.

The fact is that Arminianism resulted from the Remonstrants' systemization of the doctrines taught by a former Calvinist, Jacob Arminius. Not to be outdone, The Calvinists developed their 5 points as a reaction to those of the Arminians. The facts are that these doctrines do not exist in a systemized form to be labeled prior to the Synod of Dort in 1618.

Did you think I didn't know this??? I was not referring to a systematized form of the doctrine (as you can tell by my failure to talk about a systematized form of the doctrine). I was talking about the beliefs themselves.

In fact, I think personally that you should repent of your blasphemy in claiming that the Lord Jesus Christ would be a "Calvinist" (Follower of John Calvin).

I didn't say that. You need to go back and read what I said. You need to be more careful with people's words. You have a very bad habit of twisting people's word and making them out to be saying somethign they never said. I have warned you about this several times. It is a very unethical and unChristian way to treat people. You need to cease that method or cease posting.

[ November 30, 2003, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by PappaBear:
For the Calvinist, any repentance and belief is not a condition of salvation, but a consequence of it.

As we have repeatedly pointed out, you are confusing regeneration with salvation. Do your homework before you post this kind of stuff. It is not what we believe.

They are so intent to excise regeneration from salvation.

Because, in technical terms, they are different things. Hodge describes a broad and narrow sense of regeneration. You are confusing them. You are right about the broad sense of regeneration. But you try to apply the teachings about the narrow sense to it.

To them, God regenerates which makes men repent and believe, etc. To them, if God did not regenerate, then men would not repent or believe. So, is salvation conditional upon repentance and belief for the Calvinist?

[/qb]See how you confuse the terms??? You talk about one thing and then suddenly switch and hope no one notices. We are not that dumb.