But Calvinist and Arminian are type of Baptist. Historically, they were called General Baptists and Particular Baptists because of their view on the atonement.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What is calvinism?
- Thread starter webdog
- Start date
reformedbeliever
New Member
Webdog, I'll answer you, even though I think it is a waste of time. You really do not care to know what Calvinist believe. You actually are looking for a reason to dispute whatever one claims about Calvinism.
Total depravity- Means one is spiritually unable to come to a saving faith in God without God's miraculous intervention- being born again. It does not mean man is incapable of common goodness.
Unconditional election- God chose a particular people as His own possession. Only those are the elect (saved) the rest He passes over. The elect are as depraved as anyone else and deserve eternal punishmen like the rest of mankind, they are simply saved according to God's eternal plan and glory..... according to HIs will.
Limited attonement- God died for whosoever will. His death paid the price of all sins of the whosoever will. Sometimes called particular redemption... those who are whosoever will not..... they will pay for their own sins.
Irrestible grace- Those whom the Holy Spirit regenerates, will come to Jesus. All that the Father gives me will come... This does not mean that they will not resist at some point.... but will eventually come. They will possibly or probably resist at the point of being drawn, like the rest of lost mankind, but when they are actually born again, they do not resist that rescue of the soul.
Perseverance of the Saints- Those whom God has set apart - the elect or chosen, will persevere to the end.
Now I know you are going to try to pick this apart..... because that is your nature webdog. You seem to want to argue even when you know you are wrong.
Total depravity- Means one is spiritually unable to come to a saving faith in God without God's miraculous intervention- being born again. It does not mean man is incapable of common goodness.
Unconditional election- God chose a particular people as His own possession. Only those are the elect (saved) the rest He passes over. The elect are as depraved as anyone else and deserve eternal punishmen like the rest of mankind, they are simply saved according to God's eternal plan and glory..... according to HIs will.
Limited attonement- God died for whosoever will. His death paid the price of all sins of the whosoever will. Sometimes called particular redemption... those who are whosoever will not..... they will pay for their own sins.
Irrestible grace- Those whom the Holy Spirit regenerates, will come to Jesus. All that the Father gives me will come... This does not mean that they will not resist at some point.... but will eventually come. They will possibly or probably resist at the point of being drawn, like the rest of lost mankind, but when they are actually born again, they do not resist that rescue of the soul.
Perseverance of the Saints- Those whom God has set apart - the elect or chosen, will persevere to the end.
Now I know you are going to try to pick this apart..... because that is your nature webdog. You seem to want to argue even when you know you are wrong.
I agree with Larry and Jim both, but I think Jim has gotten closer to the central issue - the decrees of God. I think it's too narrow definition to bring down to the "U" only. But I guess if we were going to take a shortcut to a separating doctrine, unconditional election certainly does a good job of it.
reformedbeliever
New Member
J.D. said:
Agreed. The total depravity part of the acrostic is very important also. Once one understands the total depravity part... the rest is easily understood IMO.
I think there are four essential categories with shades of gray in each:
1. Denies all 5-points of TULIP
2. Holds to the P in TULIP (or some other form of eternal security)
3. Holds to the 4 points excluding L.
4. Holds to all 5 points.
Despite what I've heard other 5-pointers say, I do not think it is inconsistent to be a 4-pointer. The T, U and I are essentially intertwined in that if you deny one, then you essentially deny the other. I don't think there are any consistent 2 or 3-pointers. There are plenty of 1-pointers and some 4-pointers, but inbetween those two does not make much sense. But I can conceive of holding to the other 4 while denying L. L is not necessarily intertwined with the others like T, U and I are.
1. Denies all 5-points of TULIP
2. Holds to the P in TULIP (or some other form of eternal security)
3. Holds to the 4 points excluding L.
4. Holds to all 5 points.
Despite what I've heard other 5-pointers say, I do not think it is inconsistent to be a 4-pointer. The T, U and I are essentially intertwined in that if you deny one, then you essentially deny the other. I don't think there are any consistent 2 or 3-pointers. There are plenty of 1-pointers and some 4-pointers, but inbetween those two does not make much sense. But I can conceive of holding to the other 4 while denying L. L is not necessarily intertwined with the others like T, U and I are.
reformedbeliever said:
I know I'll get heat from the non-Calvinists for saying this, but I believe the problem people have with total depravity is an emotional problem not a scriptural one. It's hard to accept the fact that nobody, not a single person, ever, deserves anything, including the "offer" of salvation.
But, IMO, the Bible is all but incomprehensible unless you recognize that's what it says. Take Job, for example. God praises Him and then allows satan to put him through unspeakable trials. The emotional impact to our limited understanding is to ask, did Job really deserve that? No, he deserved much worse, as do we all. That's not the answer we want to hear, but it's the right one.
How can one begin to appreciate grace unless one recognizes total depravity? Even Arminius recognized total depravity. It's only when he got to the nature of grace that he got confused.
webdog,
It is an interim paradigm growing toward a better understanding of God than the one provide before it by Catholicism. However, it is best for the church to move on to our Bibles (my impression is that there may have been as many copies of theologically flawed Institutes in circulation and read as there were of the Bible in Calvin's day).
We have debated "ad nauseum" the errors of Calvinism beginning with the one at the very heart of the theology --- fate vs. free will. Does the Bible anywhere indicate that believers in the OT or NT were fatalists? were not in control of their own eternal destiny?
It is demonstrable that Calvinism can't answer correctly why infants who die go to heaven (though all acknowledge that they do). This speaks volumes to their errors concerning 1) the natural state of all men and 2) the definition of "sin nature," "original sin," our "inheritance" "in Adam (our "federal head"), etc.
Calvinism offers NO WAY into the kingdom of Christ. Simply put, there is nothing you can do of your own volition to enter the kingdom of God. Of what use is the gospel then. Is it just to taunt the condemned with??
There's more but that should be enough for now.
raying:
skypair
It is an interim paradigm growing toward a better understanding of God than the one provide before it by Catholicism. However, it is best for the church to move on to our Bibles (my impression is that there may have been as many copies of theologically flawed Institutes in circulation and read as there were of the Bible in Calvin's day).
We have debated "ad nauseum" the errors of Calvinism beginning with the one at the very heart of the theology --- fate vs. free will. Does the Bible anywhere indicate that believers in the OT or NT were fatalists? were not in control of their own eternal destiny?
It is demonstrable that Calvinism can't answer correctly why infants who die go to heaven (though all acknowledge that they do). This speaks volumes to their errors concerning 1) the natural state of all men and 2) the definition of "sin nature," "original sin," our "inheritance" "in Adam (our "federal head"), etc.
Calvinism offers NO WAY into the kingdom of Christ. Simply put, there is nothing you can do of your own volition to enter the kingdom of God. Of what use is the gospel then. Is it just to taunt the condemned with??
There's more but that should be enough for now.
raying: skypair
reformedbeliever said:
Reformbeliever,
I just must respond to this fatalist notion. Do you remember the OT tabernacle? How God resided in the "Holy of holies?" Well, that is a replica of EVERY soul that comes into the world. We wouldn't have consciences if God wasn't already there in us speaking to us comparing every act we do to His perfection.
Remember in Ezek 8 when God vacated the temple? That was when Israel "died." Israel was just about to be taken over by Babylon and her temple stripped, right? Death for the lost is the same separation from God but only happens in death.
BTW, His presence in man's conscience is the explanation of God's omnipresence. God is NOT in the trees, the air, the rocks, etc. -- as pantheists would have it. God is everywhere man is. Thus David said, "If I go down to sheol ["Abraham's bosom"], Thou art there."
Total depravity sets up a flawed view of the natural state of man, as you can see. Man, because God resides in His soul as a Witness, is capable of choosing good and God. Even the "keystone" of Calvin's theology is flawed.
BTW, it is edifying to the body of Christ to learn the truth by whatever means, wouldn't you agree? Hopefully even our "disputes" will be in love rather then in suspicion and untruth.
skypair
Last edited by a moderator:
Why are you so vindictive? I don't argue anything if I "know" I'm wrong on it. That's a pretty pompous attitude to have.reformedbeliever said:
Having said that, what you listed is EXACTLY what I believe calvinism teaches. I don't know how I can get the comments "please learn what calvinism teaches", "learn something" if what you have laid out is indeed what calvinism teaches, as this so happens to be my view also. Although I don't agree, this is still what I believe calvinism to teach.
So please Pastor Larry, quit with the "you don't know...". I do.
psalms109:31
Active Member
Total depravity
I agree with total depravity, until Jesus died and was resurrected on the third day, and now sits on the right hand of God.
Now He has poured out the Holy Spirit upon the earth, and now with the Holy Spirit at the door knocking to come in through His messenger. We cannot be totally depraved with the Holy Spirit right at the door. Remember we have to open the door and let Him in.
God has preoprdained before even the foundation of the world that those who put thier faith (trust) in Him will not be disappointed. God has preordained that those who put thier trust in Jesus will believe and be directed to salvation.
It is not putting your trust in yourself, but in Jesus. We must die to ourselves.
I agree with total depravity, until Jesus died and was resurrected on the third day, and now sits on the right hand of God.
Now He has poured out the Holy Spirit upon the earth, and now with the Holy Spirit at the door knocking to come in through His messenger. We cannot be totally depraved with the Holy Spirit right at the door. Remember we have to open the door and let Him in.
God has preoprdained before even the foundation of the world that those who put thier faith (trust) in Him will not be disappointed. God has preordained that those who put thier trust in Jesus will believe and be directed to salvation.
It is not putting your trust in yourself, but in Jesus. We must die to ourselves.
Does Calvinism teach this? Or did you just make it up? I know of no Calvinist who teaches fatalism.
This also is dishonest since not all Calvinists acknowledge that infants go to heaven. Secondly, you assume that Calvinism can't correctly answer this question. But such an assumption comes from your presupposition that you hold the correct answer. As we have shown, your position on the sinfulness and guilt of infants contradicts Scripture.
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding that has been addressed many times. You, like webdog, refuse to listen and learn from people who konw what they are talking about. In Calvinism, the "way into the kingdom of Christ" is through grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone. The gospel is the good news that salvation is available in Christ and is used to call all people to faith and repentance.
If you understood Calvinism, you would know that. As it stands, you are arguing against something that Calvinism doesn't believe.
Please stop.
Is it loving, in your book, to make up stuff about Calvinism? I don't think it is.
Then act like it. The things that you say are different than what is said here. You constantly set up straw men that Calvinism doesn't hold to. You defeat it admirably and are left with a handful of straw that no one held before and no one wants now. It's sad ... and it needs to stop.
Feel free to disagree with us. But don't make it up. That's all I am asking.
npetreley said:
I think it is an emotional reaction, but maybe it's the U that they really can't stand. They think a God that chooses who will be saved and who will not be saved based only on His own counsel is a monster. I've been told several time that "I would rather die than serve a God like that!".
What they don't consider is that if He saved nobody He would be just. The only reason he saves anybody is because of His mercy.
The objection against God's sovereign election comes from a sense of entitlement. They think He's obligated to save people. Also, they think that God must answer to some higher authority, which basically is their own notion of justice.
npetreley said:
I certainly do not speak for all the non-cals, but I'd be willing to bet not one of them believes they deserve anything from God but eternal punishment. Furthermore, total depravity is not a problem for me, I know I would not be saved if not for the power of the word of God and the Holy Spirit. I think Pastor Larry has it right when he says the dividing line is primarily Unconditional Election.
Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
That sounds like a condition to me. However, it could be argued that salvation is conditional - conditional on whether you are elected or not - and the only possibility that you would believe in your heart that God has raised Jesus from the dead is if the Holy Spirit put that belief there.
Now I return to reading and thinking...
I agree with Blammo on this.npetreley said:
You 'getting heat' is only because of your complete lack of understanding concerning the Non-Cal view and then trying to tell us what we believe.
It is funny you get up set that the Non-Cals don't get your positional understanding correct but in the same tounge-in-check move do the same towards the Non-Cals.
Brother Bob
New Member
The problem for the Cal is that the Holy Spirit puts it to all men for they shall know me from the least unto the greatest for one scripture. The problem being again is that most love darkness rather than light. Also, the light lighteth everyman that cometh into the world. Again, men loved darkness rather than light. That is the problem with how they see Total Depravity is that they only see the light lighten only the "elect".
Yes , the Light ( Jesus , the Christ ) lightens every class of people -- all kinds of folks who are the elect . The Lord doesn't enlighten those who have never heard . And He doesn't enlighten those who have heard whom He withholds His saving power .
It is indeed true that in the natural realm people love darkness -- they not only walk in darkness -- they ARE darkness .
It is indeed true that in the natural realm people love darkness -- they not only walk in darkness -- they ARE darkness .
JD -J.D. said:
Being that I have never hear anything of the type espoused by Non-Cal pastors I personally know or sat under much less College and Seminary stated in ANY mannerism your statements.
No one in the vast majority states God is OBLIGATED to save anyone. And you ARE wrong on what they DON"T consider. We KNOW that He is just to save none and readily state this same point without equivocation.
Again you are taking a minority view of God having to answer to some higher authority and applying it by implication to ALL Non-Cals. It is not OUR notion of justice, but scripture which we hold fast to. God is just in saving whom ever He chooses to do so with, and ALSO how He manner in which He chooses to do it.
>>>edited to remove inaccurate wording<<<
Please stop embelishing the minority thoughts of Non-Cals just because you don't understand it our actual beliefs.
Last edited by a moderator: