What Are The Differences In Calvinists?

[PappaBear]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
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.

Only by you who finds it so easy to make labels according to men's names, lumping anything that isn't Calvinist into that genre you call "Arminian."

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />PappaBear: 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. </font>[/QUOTE]Well...let's see. You said, "These two systems are opposed to one another, and every short [sic] of open theists and atheists, believe in one or the other." Alright, you are claiming in the above that Jesus Christ was NOT a Calvinist. Are you then maligning Him as an Arminian, since you believe you can only be one or the other? I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. If you admit that Jesus was neither Arminian nor Calvinist, then you admit to a third position and that is what I am. I call it being a "Lordshipper." If you do not admit to that, then your need for an apology stands because you believe Christ to either be Calvinistic or Arminian. And yes, you did say that "from reading the words of Christ ...that they were calvinistic..." It wasn't me that so profaned Him, it was you. You would have been much more safe to claim that Calvin merely systematized the words or doctrines of Christ, Paul, etc. But you preferred to make a profane attempt at retrograding your heretical doctrine back to the Lord. I do not think that is an error for which you should receive a pass on.

 

[PappaBear]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
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.

Wrote that before you read the whole post, didn't ya? My post emphasized the false teaching of Calvinist regeneration as being responsible for their view of enabled faith.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />PappaBear: They are so intent to excise regeneration from salvation.

Because, in technical terms, they are different things. </font>[/QUOTE]

And in Biblical terms, so is justification, glorification, and sanctification but you don't seem to be wanting to quibble over that but lump them altogether into a salvation process. Once again, Calvinist inconsistency rears its ugly head. You want to excise regeneration as distinctly different from salvation but include all other aspects into one big system so that no one can have a conversation with you about when they got saved. Oh, yes! "Saved". That is a nice, Biblical word.

Pastor Larry: We are not that dumb.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by PappaBear:
Only by you who finds it so easy to make labels according to men's names, lumping anything that isn't Calvinist into that genre you call "Arminian."

I use these terms in teh way they are generally used. To be a "calvinist" does not mean that one agrees with all five point; to be an Arminian does not mean one agrees with all five points. These are general terms to describe a basic view of salvation. And short of open theist, there are no other views.

What in the world do you think is a view?? If you do not believe that God sovereignly and unilaterally elects people to salvation, you are an arminian. That is not an attack. It is simply a short hand form of denoting what you believe, much as the term "Baptist" is. There is no need to run from it.

Well...let's see. You said, "These two systems are opposed to one another, and every short [sic] of open theists and atheists, believe in one or the other." Alright, you are claiming in the above that Jesus Christ was NOT a Calvinist. Are you then maligning Him as an Arminian, since you believe you can only be one or the other?

Talk about trying to be ... The terms "calvinist" and "arminian" are modern terms. They did not exist back then. The set of beliefs did; the name was different. In the first century, the set of beliefs that is today called Calvinist was simply the gospel. That does not make them Calvinists. As I said, "calvninistic." You better be sure that Jesus understood that sovereign personal election led to belief and repentance. It is what he taught his disciples and what the apostles passed on in their writings.

I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ.

So am I.

I call it being a "Lordshipper." If you do not admit to that, then your need for an apology stands because you believe Christ to either be Calvinistic or Arminian. And yes, you did say that "from reading the words of Christ ...that they were calvinistic..."

I didn't say he was a calvinist. Read what you yourself quoted. I have mentioned several times your propensity to be loose with words. You yourself quote my words, and it is clear that I did not say Christ was a calvinist.

It wasn't me that so profaned Him, it was you.

I didn't profane him. To say that he was calvinistic (using today's terminology) is what he was. I was say Jesus was baptistic too. Those are modern terms for ancient beliefs.

In all of this, you took a tongue in cheek statement (signified by the little emoticon after it), and read way too much into it. It is not substantive. The discussion should not be about what the beliefs are called. Let's call them "tridrelrtism" and "fioreotshism." That was we can get the personalities out of it and move on to the substance. The names are not important. It is the teachings that are important.

[qutoe]You would have been much more safe to claim that Calvin merely systematized the words or doctrines of Christ, Paul, etc. But you preferred to make a profane attempt at retrograding your heretical doctrine back to the Lord. I do not think that is an error for which you should receive a pass on. [/QUOTE]It wasn't an error which I made. You have essentially said what I said. If you go back and read what I said, I said the beliefs were there although the name was not. You have said nothing different here. You have simply used different words. You have a tendency to pick on insignificant stuff. Why?? I have no idea. I wish the discussion could be more substantive.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by PappaBear:
Wrote that before you read the whole post, didn't ya? My post emphasized the false teaching of Calvinist regeneration as being responsible for their view of enabled faith.

Nope. I even quoted you to show where you interchanged "regeneration" and "salvation." I reject that type of argumentation.

You believe it is a false teaching. That is fine. That was not my point. My point was that Calvinists teach that regeneration and salvation are not technically the same. You are mistaken on that.

And in Biblical terms, so is justification, glorification, and sanctification but you don't seem to be wanting to quibble over that but lump them altogether into a salvation process.

Right ... but "salvation" is a braod term which depends on teh context in which it is used to see what it means. Salvation in scripture is past, present, and future. It is physical and spiritual. A one size fits all definition simply will not work.

Once again, Calvinist inconsistency rears its ugly head. You want to excise regeneration as distinctly different from salvation but include all other aspects into one big system so that no one can have a conversation with you about when they got saved. Oh, yes! "Saved". That is a nice, Biblical word.

See above ... context is everything. When we speak of regeneration, we are speaking of something very specific. When we speak of salvation, typically we are speaking of something broader. For instance, the word "stomach" might provide a good example. A child says he got hit in the stomach by a friend, he probably means he got hit on the outside of his abdomen. If the doctor says he is going to do stomach surgery, he is referring to the technical stomach. The same word means different things in different contexts. The same is true with salvation. We need to be more precise. Why are you loathe to do that?? Why not use the words the way they are typically used?? Are you worried your distinctions and arguments would fall apart?? I can see that they would ...

 

[Primitive Baptist]

Some Calvinist and Reformed Christians are nothing more than Arminians in disguise.

There is a difference in the way election is defined among Calvinist and Reformed Christians and Primitive Baptists. Election is not what God decided to do with man after man decided what to do with God, but what God decided to do with man in the first place. "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor." That text does not read the way most Predestinarians preach it. Their version goes something like this: "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and pass over the dishonorable one."

The Gospel to the average Calvinist and Reformed Christian is a proposition, not a proclamation. The Gospel is never presented in Scripture as an offer. Many who claim to believe in sovereign grace have even adopted the popular "altar call" method. Since they have a distorted view of the Gospel, they tack faith and repentance to salvation by sovereign grace and make them conditions instead of evidences of grace.

 

[PappaBear]

Originally posted by Primitive Baptist:
The Gospel to the average Calvinist and Reformed Christian is a proposition, not a proclamation. The Gospel is never presented in Scripture as an offer. Many who claim to believe in sovereign grace have even adopted the popular "altar call" method. Since they have a distorted view of the Gospel, they tack faith and repentance to salvation by sovereign grace and make them conditions instead of evidences of grace.

That is pretty much as I thought that the average Calvinist and Reformed Christian believed. Thank you very much Primitive Baptist, for sharing this post.

 

[russell55]

I think what PB is telling you is the difference between what he, as a Primitive Baptist, believes, and what the average Calvinist or reformed person believes. Primitive Baptists do not believe in the offer of the gospel, while the Calvinists (or reformed) person does. There are several Primitive Baptists posting in this forum, and it can confuse you if you don't understand that their beliefs differ from what Calvinists believe.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

Going back to the original post - what are the differences in Calvinists? Wow - it's interesting to see you Baptists going back and forth so much.

As a deacon in an evangelical, reformed and calvinistic denomination, I wanted to share my thoughts.

First of course, there are many differences because there are many calvinistic denominations. There are reformed Baptists, Presbyterians, Reformed Christians, etc. just to name a few. While we would all agree that the correct scriptural view of salvation is now called "Calvinism" (as the great Baptist Spurgeon once said, "it is a nickname to call it Calvinism. It is the Gospel and nothing else."), many of us disagree on other issues, eg baptism, eschatology, etc.

Within the confines of our view of salvation, I am sure that there are some differences. But quite frankly, in more than 20 years as a Presbyterian I have yet to run into many and I have never run into those that are labled "hyper-Calvinists."

(What do you Arminians think we do? Have "John Calvin" Sunday? Make all new members recite the five points before joining the church?)

In any event, those of us who are calvinistic and evangelical do not "downplay" our doctrinal beliefs at all. Lest we forget, Evangelism Explosion (one of the greatest evangelistic tools out there) came out of a reformed church. Dr. Kennedy is somehow less Calvinistic in his doctrine than others? I don't think so. I think you would find Knox Seminary (also out of Coral Ridge) to be very calvinistic in their theology.

On any given Sunday, our pastor will probably not be preaching on Total Depravity, just as yours will probably not be preaching on the Free Will of Man. Hopefully, both will be proclaiming the good news of the Gospel, and that won't make you less of an Arminian or me less Calvinistic.

 

[Yelsew]

While we would all agree that the correct scriptural view of salvation is now called "Calvinism" (as the great Baptist Spurgeon once said, "it is a nickname to call it Calvinism. It is the Gospel and nothing else."), many of us disagree on other issues, eg baptism, eschatology, etc.

You presume, of course, that ALL are willing to believe that lie. Calvinism is NOTHING to salvation! SALVATION Predates Calvinism by at least two milleniums, perhaps an eternity, and Calvin himself may have been a beneficiary of Salvation. But then again, there is the possibility that he wasn't.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

I'm sorry you misread my post. As stated, I was simply answering the question from a calvinistic position, especially since the question was from someone who is not calvinistic in their view.

In stating that "we would all agree" the "we" refers to those who are calvinistic, not "we" meaning all Christians.

Again, calvinism is a modern term to describe a view of salvation. (So obviously the term is pre-dated by Christ's death and resurrection.) Whether you agree with this view or an Arminian view is up to you.

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by FriendofSpurgeon:
I'm sorry you misread my post. As stated, I was simply answering the question from a calvinistic position, especially since the question was from someone who is not calvinistic in their view.

In stating that "we would all agree" the "we" refers to those who are calvinistic, not "we" meaning all Christians.

Again, calvinism is a modern term to describe a view of salvation. (So obviously the term is pre-dated by Christ's death and resurrection.) Whether you agree with this view or an Arminian view is up to you.

I don't agree with either man, entirely, but I suppose I lean more to Arminius and away from Calvin.