What do these men have in common?

I consider myself in the company of Spurgeon when he wrote that Calvinism was just a nickname for what the bible teaches on the matter of salvation.

Historically, the TULIP is a response to the Dutch Remonstrants. The five points were not itemized by John Calvin as we know them. Followers of his did such in response to the Remonstrants.

Have you read Chosen But Free by Norm Geisler who dubs himself a moderate Calvinist? A misnomer at best. It is like a pastor friend of mine who refers to himself as an Arminian-Calvinist.

 

If you want to get picky, people are fond of calling our debates on this topic C/A debates. But I've never seen a Calvinist/Arminian debate on these forums. The majority of what free-willers say on these forums doesn't even come close to Arminianism. The majority of free-willers here are semi-pelagians, which is much farther removed from Arminianism than so-called 4-point Calvinists are from Calvinism. I believe Arminius would have considered most of the free-willers on this board heretics. I seem to recall that in his day anything but total depravity was considered heresy.

 

At the very minimum, I think you'd have to agree, generally, with the T, U, I, and P of Calvinism. Some of those people you've listed outright deny 3 out of 5, and make enough changes to the other two that they are hardly the same thing. I think it's disingenuous, if that's the case, to call yourself a Calvinist.

 

I don't know what you mean by "not a pelagian of any stripe". If you believe fallen man is able to do any spiritual good whatsoever, or that man has the innate ability to cooperate with God to make a decision on salvation, then - at the very least - you're a semi-pelagian. If you believe that man is born totally unable to do any spritual good, save himself, or even incline himself toward being saved, then you are not a semi-pelagian.

 

I would say that describes the majority here, myself included. We don't consider accepting a free gift contributing to salvation as you like to attribute to us. All of the pelagian / semipelagian branding is done with the intention of slurring us.

 

Ha! I didn't mean to suggest that you called yourself a Calvinist. I was remarking about a few of the people in the opening post.

 

Also see W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 3. I think it starts about p.298, but I don't have the book with me right now.

I get your point.......some would have us believe it's more black and white, one or the other. But the list you showed demonstrates that the issue is far from black and white. At the very least, we should read these men, not what others say about these men.

 

am a little late on this thread and so I don't know if that comment has been addressed, POB, but, yeah, well, almost everybody here who do not claim to be Calvinist or adherent to the Doctrine of Grace say what you say from one side of their mouths, and then speak the semi-pelagian tongue one way or the other from the other side.

 

All I can see from your testimony is that God has not drawn you, which is why tears can actually fall down from your eyes like waterfall, but when it's time for you to break down before Christ it ain't ever goin' be your decision cause when it's God's time for your drawin' the dullest speakin' preacher's voice will sound boomin' and convictin' to ya, or you may be in the middle of something you like doin' and all of a sudden you don' wan' it no mo'h an' ya'll just tuck yer tail and zip outta there and into a church or a Bible no matter what the hour.

Unless you wan' rule out God's drawin' pow'r of course, and say somethin' in ya jist cracked, then, ya'll ain' nuthin' but one of 'em semi-pelagians, which still doesn't change the fact that it is God who draws.

 

I'll look that up later when I have my book. Whatever he says there he has to square with what he said in the quote I provided.

 

Not at all. Go back and read your own arguments and the arguments of others. You will repeatedly find things like, "Of course we can do good while being unsaved. Don't you think taking care of your kids is good? Don't you think (etc. etc.)?" You will find people saying, "God gave us all free will, which is why we're able to choose." And you will find arguments like, "We may be affected by sin, but we're still made in the image of God."

These are all semi-pelagian statements. They elevate man above total depravity, which is what semi-pelagianism is. It's not a slur. It's just the truth.

 

Right, as soon as you say "man is able" you have denied total depravity or original sin, and have endorsed some form of pelagianism.

 

POB: We must have different editions. Page 277 para 2b in my book has a quote concerning the second coming. Nothing about freewill.

 

You don't have to say "man is able" to deny total depravity or original sin.

 

You are equating "good" with righteous. They are not the same. Man can do no "good" to attain salvation...buy man can do good works. Feeding the poor and taking care of the needy are deemed "good" in Scripture, and there are lost people who do just that. They are not righteous for doing those, however. If they are doing those things to earn salvation, their righteousness are as filthy rags before God. The saved and lost will BOTH be judged on the things they did in the body...both GOOD and BAD.