What is your definition of a Calvinist?

[Reformed1689]

All Christians (regardless of theological opinion) are happy with God being God.

Disagree

 

[JonC]

My question would be, if this is given to all men, then are you not saying in a different way the same thing a semi-Pelagian would say - that all men have enough light to choose wisely. And if it is different, or if it is a direct, special conviction action on the part of the Holy Spirit, which is necessary to help men come to Christ or they would not otherwise come - then why is enough of this "help" not given to everyone. Why is this overcoming grace only overcoming sometimes.

Sorry, I didn't address this.

The difference is not that God gives overcoming grace to some and not others. In Classic Arminianism there is no overcoming grace. God does good. Man does evil. All men are drawn. Some will believe by God's grace while others will choose not to believe by their own nature. What is the difference? Scripture places some emphasis on the upbringing of a person and some on the hearing of the Word. Scripture also puts an emphasis (in a negative way) on obstacles (like other people, cares of this world, wealth, etc.).

The same question could be asked of the list. Why are some kind and others cruel? Why will some be caregivers and others murders?

I do need to clarify that I do not hold Classic Arminianism as correct. I just want to understand what people believe, why, and what effect it has overall.

Since I do not believe Penal Substitution Theory correct the Calvinism vs Free-Will Theology is obsolete (to my belief).

But I realize each position seems to glorify God and be faithful to Scripture.

I suppose that is one difference between the "hypers" of any view. Hyper positions hold their adherents to be the only ones who glorify God, the only ones seeking out Scripture, the only ones who are happy with God. They are a plague on the church.

 

[CalTech]

Yes, it most certainly does, but only admits as much through clenched teeth when forced into a corner.



A red herring of an argument if I ever saw one. Classic Calvinistic obfuscation.
No one debates that point. Utterly irrelevant.
The new birth is entirely a work of God. But he will only birth the nature of Christ in you if you want him to.
Let's not confound distinct issues.
In the Calvinist world, a paraplegic and dumb (mute) man who even winks his assent to the surgeon who completely heals him is a man who participated in his own healing and robbed the surgeon of his glory.
The only way the surgeon gets glory is if the paraplegic dumb man was also comatose and never could wink his assent.
What a messed up doctrine, what a petty little surgeon that. That ain't Bible.

Greetings,

Then you must have a problem with this:

Mat 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

Example:
Man with a Legion:

Mar 5:7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
Mar 5:8 For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit.
Mar 5:9 And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.
Mar 5:10 And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country.
Mar 5:11 Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding.
Mar 5:12 And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.
Mar 5:13 And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand and were choked in the sea.
Mar 5:14 And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done.
Mar 5:15 And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.

Saul:

Act 9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
Act 9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
Act 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
Act 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
Act 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Mary Magdalene:

Luk 8:2 And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,

Many other deliverance's and healing's:

Luk 7:21 And in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight.
Luk 7:22 Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.
Luk 7:23 And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.


The Lord bless you....
In His Love....

 

[CalTech]

I don't have a problem with you saying that you, yourself, wanted the new birth. But it's not irrelevant if you now love God and choose to praise him because of being born again. I don't know what happened to you in the past but you have an animosity towards Calvinism that is weird. Why is every response to you some kind of sinister "obfuscation" or some subtle insult? Why can't you just disagree with someone and state your case? I'm simply saying that if you are now loving God and praising him whereas you didn't before, and it's because you have been given a new nature - then the change did not come from your own free will.

Greetings,

Those who oppose that the Lord Taketh the Kingdom by force, then they deny His Authority to do so.
Saul was saved against his will, his determination was to persecute, jail, and have Disciples of Christ murdered.
However the Lord had another plan for Saul, He took Saul by force, without Saul's permission....

The Same with the poor man with a Legion of demon's, he could not see or know the Lord until He removed the demon's.....Jesus Christ took this man by violence against the forces of evil, also without the poor man's permission.....

Mary Magdalene, possessed with 7 evil demon's.....Jesus cast them out with force, for ALL authority was given Him over the demon's and that authority was only used according to the Father's perfect will......without Mary's willing permission.....

The problem is that men's "self-righteous" position of fighting against this, total depravity truth, issue strikes them at their core, the core of Pride, and unbelief.........and Only the Power of the Holy Spirit, can cause anyone one of us to face the absolute reality of the worthlessness of our sinful and wicked heart, even while we are believer's.

Mat_16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.



The Lord bless you...
In His Love

 

[DaveXR650]

The difference is not that God gives overcoming grace to some and not others. In Classic Arminianism there is no overcoming grace. God does good. Man does evil. All men are drawn. Some will believe by God's grace while others will choose not to believe by their own nature. What is the difference? Scripture places some emphasis on the upbringing of a person and some on the hearing of the Word. Scripture also puts an emphasis (in a negative way) on obstacles (like other people, cares of this world, wealth, etc.).

I don't always agree with you and most certainly didn't on the atonement, but you're one of the few people on here who will actually discuss something and I appreciate that. My old fundamentalist Baptist preachers would say quite often that we needed to take the message very seriously because not only were you not promised another day on this Earth, but more importantly, if you felt any call or pulling of the Spirit to respond to the gospel and you refused again, it was possible that you would never be called like that again. In other words, there was a need of direct action of the Spirit for someone to be saved that was more than a blanket ability given to men in general. It sounds a lot like aspects of Calvinism but at the time I didn't know enough to even ask about it. I guess the difference is in the amount or force of the pull. Is it irresistible or not? I am mostly of a Calvinist persuasion but am not settled on all the metaphysical aspects because what attracted me to Calvinism was more the devotional writings of the Puritans than the debate over the TULIP.

 

[canadyjd]

I've been looking at the classic Arminian view on this too. It seems reasonable. If I understand it right they are of the belief that a direct action of the Holy Spirit is needed or else no one would be saved. Is that correct? But the difference is - men can, and do resist this grace. My question would be, if this is given to all men, then are you not saying in a different way the same thing a semi-Pelagian would say - that all men have enough light to choose wisely. And if it is different, or if it is a direct, special conviction action on the part of the Holy Spirit, which is necessary to help men come to Christ or they would not otherwise come - then why is enough of this "help" not given to everyone. Why is this overcoming grace only overcoming sometimes. It seems you still have God choosing who will be saved. I certainly see the possibility of men being so attached to their sin that God judicially decides enough is enough but is that what it means? It seems there are more shades or degrees of this than we as men may know.

I have similar questions. Since God is omniscient, He knows exactly how much influence by Holy Spirit is necessary for each person to come to Christ. Why do some receive enough Holy Spirit influence to come to Christ and others don’t?

To claim everyone is drawn “the same” really doesn’t help the position either. If God draws everyone “the same”, then He is deliberately passing over those He already knows will not respond to Holy Spirit.

The same kind of argument can be made concerning the “authentic offer” of salvation debate.

Those who oppose the doctrines of grace will often claim the offer of salvation is not authentic if only the elect will respond.

Since God already knows who will reject the offer, doesn’t that make the offer as inauthentic as the idea only the elect will respond?

peace to you

 

[Salty]

Some people are are getting way off OP!
This thread is NOT for explaining your expanded beliefs on C-vs- A

Listed below is the OP

1) How would you define a Calvinist in 25 words or less?

2) The term "TULIP" defines a Calvinist - If so, do you have to believe all five to be
considered a Calvinist? (additional note - all that is necessary is "Yes" or "NO")
Calvinism - Wikipedia

3) What is the difference between a Calvinist and a hyper-calvinist?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several posts have went way over 25 words!

 

[DaveXR650]

@Salty. You are right and I apologize. I used to be on a motorcycle forum and the worst sin you could do on there was hijack a thread. So I apologize. I won't be around for the next couple of days or I would start a new one. Thanks for putting up with us.

 

[Silverhair]

Sorry, I have to stand with biblical truth even if that means someone gets their feelings hurt. I'm not ok with someone who calls themselves a Christ Follower taking credit for their own salvation. We are not in control. If we were, we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

Having the free will to trust in the gospel message is not taking credit for ones salvation, it is saying that I can not save myself and I am trusting in God to save me.

 

[Silverhair]

But how do you know that you were not already regenerated and that is WHY you wanted to be saved? Have you ever considered that possibility?

Well logic would tell you if you were regenerated then you would already be saved so why would you need/want to be saved again?

 

[Silverhair]

Don't give me too much credit and don't patronize me either. I am well aware of the semi-Pelagian beliefs that men have the natural ability to respond to the gospel on their own. I have John R. Rice's books and I know he claims that we all have "some" light. He may be right. He also says explicitly that you cannot be saved without the work of the Holy Spirit. His book, "False Doctrines Answered from the Scriptures" top of page 275 in his words " Sinners are Depraved, Cannot be Saved Unless God Calls, but All Have Some Light, Some Calling." There is no subtlety here. You say you are given a new nature. You insist that you were given a new nature because you asked for it. OK. You admit you needed to be born again and that it was a gift. If you were so depraved that you needed a new nature why in the world would you show such animosity to a Calvinist who takes it one step further and says that maybe if you were too depraved to change on your own you needed help BEFORE you made the decision. After all, were not talking about surgery, this whole thing is about your WILL. There isn't that much difference in my book and John R. Rice considered himself some type of a moderate Calvinist.

Man has the God given ability to respond to the gospel message, that is not semi-Pelagian. God convicts man as we see in Joh16:8-9 so you could say that God is calling us via that. Where I run into problems with calvinism is their insistence that only the "elect" will be able to respond to the call. Not biblical but you still hold to that view.

 

[Silverhair]

A Christian who is happy with God being God.


I prefer the term 'Definite Atonement' to 'Limited Atonement' but TUDIP somehow doesn't have the same ring to it.
But yes, a Calvinist loves all five of the facets of the TULIP diamond. A four point Calvinist is a contradiction.

A Hyper-Calvinist is afraid lest one of the non-elect should sneak into heaven while God isn't looking. Therefore he does not support the free preaching of the Gospel to all.

Changing the terms used still does not change the problems found in the TULIP or TUDIP.

 

[Silverhair]

I think this is the easiest summation of it. A Calvinist is happy with God being God, knows what God's lane is and what our lane is.

That just describes a bible believing Christian, no labels required.

 

[Silverhair]

I've been looking at the classic Arminian view on this too. It seems reasonable. If I understand it right they are of the belief that a direct action of the Holy Spirit is needed or else no one would be saved. Is that correct? But the difference is - men can, and do resist this grace. My question would be, if this is given to all men, then are you not saying in a different way the same thing a semi-Pelagian would say - that all men have enough light to choose wisely. And if it is different, or if it is a direct, special conviction action on the part of the Holy Spirit, which is necessary to help men come to Christ or they would not otherwise come - then why is enough of this "help" not given to everyone. Why is this overcoming grace only overcoming sometimes. It seems you still have God choosing who will be saved. I certainly see the possibility of men being so attached to their sin that God judicially decides enough is enough but is that what it means? It seems there are more shades or degrees of this than we as men may know.

You seem to have missed the whole thing when you misunderstand the conviction of the Holy Spirit. He convicts the world but not everyone responds to the conviction, that is free will just as God planned for it to be. God desires all to be saved but will not force anyone to be saved.

 

[canadyjd]

Well logic would tell you if you were regenerated then you would already be saved so why would you need/want to be saved again?

My view of “irresistible grace” (staying on topic Salty), is that regeneration is not salvation. Salvation (a right relationship with God) occurs when a person responds to regeneration, conviction, drawing of God Holy Spirit with faith in Christ and Him crucified.

The “regeneration or quickening” is a supernatural work of God Holy Spirit that frees their human will from the enslavement to their sin nature and allows them to respond to the truth of the gospel.

peace to you

 

[AustinC]

My view of “irresistible grace” (staying on topic Salty), is that regeneration is not salvation.

The “regeneration or quickening” is a supernatural work of God Holy Spirit that frees their human will from the enslavement to their sin nature and allows them to respond to the truth of the gospel.
peace to you

Or not respond to the truth of the gospel?
Does God's quickening go away and they return back to deadness if they don't respond appropriately?

Does God make a person alive with Christ, even while they were dead in sins, only to have sin kill them again and thus defeat God's quickening?

How does this work in your view?

 

[Aaron]

1) How would you define a Calvinist in 25 words or less?

Calvinist: a loose term applied to any Christian that asserts God's sovereignty in Salvation, or that God has predestined those who will be saved.

Paul was a Calvinist. So was Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin and C. H. Spurgeon.

2) The term "TULIP" defines a Calvinist - If so, do you have to believe all five to be
considered a Calvinist?
Calvinism - Wikipedia

More accurately, TULIP was a response of the Synod of Dort (1618-19) to the five articles of remonstrance drawn up by the followers of Arminius in 1610: 1) Conditional election, 2) Unlimited atonement, 3) Total Depravity 4) Prevenient Grace 5) Conditional preservation of the saints. TULIP is not the definition or description of Calvinism.

The five points of TULIP are inarguably tenets of the Gospel, but to be called a Calvinist, one only needs to believe in Predestination, that God has foreordained those who will be saved.

3) What is the difference between a Calvinist and a hyper-calvinist?

It depends on who's using the terms.

 

[Aaron]

I didn’t know it was possible to drink too much coffee.

peace to you

It's not.

 

[Aaron]

Rest assured, our Lord Jesus doesn't need to make of fallen man a mere automaton to get praise.
Fallen man's free will in no way derogates from the glory of the Biblical God, only from the glory of the petty little Calvinistic God who fancies he loses glory if a fallen man has free will.

There can be no unity with noncalvinists.

 

[Aaron]

Oh, what magnanimity, granting a non-sought illusion of control to a paraplegic dumb man evidently lusting to control his fate by winking!

Somebody needs a hug, .