What is your definition of a Calvinist?

[Aaron]

Calvinism merely insists that there is a group of lost people who God chose to save and those lost who God chose for salvation cannot reject Him.

When one's view of the Atonement is small, then it is no wonder that he cannot articulate Calvinism, which is 'merely' the Gospel.

 

[Aaron]

Classic Arminianism does attribute salvation completely to God (not man and God, but to God alone).

Wrong again. Classic Arminianism asserts conditional election, which is an assertion of some virtue in man required to be saved.

 

[Aaron]

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!

Conversations take on a life of their own, that's kind of the fun of the whole thing.

 

[JonC]

When one's view of the Atonement is small, then it is no wonder that he cannot articulate Calvinism, which is 'merely' the Gospel.

Don't be so hard on yourself. I think you did an oK job at articulating Calvinism. You missed the mark at places, but you did ok. And don't beat yourself up for holding a small view of Atonement. That is just your tradition. As you study God's Word your view of the Atonement can grow much larger. Just be patient and remember He can make you stand without you having a firm grasp on those issues.

When we look at Calvinism as TULIP it is also important how we get to TULIP. This is why some question calling Jonathan Edwards a Calvinist.

So maybe it is not just TULIP but the explanation given at the Synod of Dort?

 

[Aaron]

Don't be so hard on yourself. I think you did an oK job at articulating Calvinism. You missed the mark at places (like divine sovereignty being unique to Calvinism). But you did ok.

When we look at Calvinism as TULIP it is also important how we get to TULIP. This is why some question calling Jonathan Edwards a Calvinist.

LOL. The OP didn't ask us to articulate Calvinism. The OP asked us what a Calvinist was. I wasn't describing Calvinism at all. I was describing a Calvinist, and I did so flawlessly.

 

[Aaron]

Don't be so hard on yourself. I think you did an oK job at articulating Calvinism. You missed the mark at places, but you did ok. And don't beat yourself up for holding a small view of Atonement. That is just your tradition. As you study God's Word your view of the Atonement can grow much larger. Just be patient and remember He can make you stand without you having a firm grasp on those issues.

When we look at Calvinism as TULIP it is also important how we get to TULIP. This is why some question calling Jonathan Edwards a Calvinist.

So maybe it is not just TULIP but the explanation given at the Synod of Dort?

Oh. And TULIP isn't a codification of Calvinism either.

 

[JonC]

Oh. And TULIP isn't a codification of Calvinism either.

I agree. Calvinism is much more than, much older than, TULIP. The term was coined in reference to Calvin's view of Communion, but it refered specifically to the doctrines he taught (later, specifically to the Institutes of the Christian Religion as codified by Beza).

The reason I speak of Calvinism in terms of TULIP is this is how it is often articulated in Baptist circles.

While it is impossible for a Baptist to be a Calvinist (historic Calvinism) we typically refer to Baptists as "Calvinist's or "Reformed" (even though they are technically neither) for holding a Calvinistic type of soteriology in regards to free-will and divine sovereignty.

Reformed Baptists are a relatively new sect of Christians. I don't know, but I think @Salty was asking how we would define Calvinism as we would use it among Baptists.

You are right, it is not really Calvinism. But for our purposes we often consider it to be Calvinism because we are posting on a Baptist board.

 

[Reformed1689]

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

If you think you had any part in your salvation, which would be the vast majority of non-calvinist thinking, then no, you are not ok with God being God. You had to have some sort of part, some sort of control. That is what we are talking about.

 

[Reformed1689]

While it is impossible for a Baptist to be a Calvinist (historic Calvinism) we typically refer to Baptists as "Calvinist's or "Reformed" (even though they are technically neither) for holding a Calvinistic type of soteriology in regards to free-will and divine sovereignty.

Reformed Baptists are a relatively new sect of Christians. I don't know, but I think @Salty was asking how we would define Calvinism as we would use it among Baptists.

You are right, it is not really Calvinism. But for our purposes we often consider it to be Calvinism because we are posting on a Baptist board.

Correct, let's be honest, most people, and not just in Baptist circles, are strictly talking about soteriology when discussing Calvinism. We are not really getting into Covenant Theology, Baptism, Eschatology, ect...

 

[Reformed1689]

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?

See there is your problem. You think regeneration and conversion are the same thing. They are not.

 

[Reformed1689]

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.

It is putting the power of salvation on yourself. Your decision, taking the decision away from God.

 

[canadyjd]

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?

The work of God Holy Spirit in bringing someone to salvation is always effective.

Also, just to be clear, even though I’ve described the work of God Holy Spirit as a series of “steps” (regeneration, conviction, drawing, response to the gospel with faith, etc) this supernatural event can be essentially instantaneous.

peace to you

 

[Silverhair]

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

I can appreciate what you think "regeneration" means but Webster disagrees with you "In a theological sense, regeneration is called the new birth." From what you have said it appears you are confusing regeneration and conviction.

 

[kyredneck]

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

A Monergist with baggage.

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

To be a Calvinist maybe, but not to be a Monergist.

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

Calvinists wrongly believe that the gospel was given to the Church to populate heaven above, Hypers understand that gospel obedience allows the heavenly born to enter the kingdom of heaven on earth.

 

[Revmitchell]

I

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


peace to you

I want to assume you are making an honest attempt to delineate the position held by those who "oppose the doctrines of grace" (a misnomer at best) however I know of no one who says this. Maybe they do but such a claim is not held by all who "oppose the doctrines of grace". Based on other recent posts I m tempted to believe this is a caricature in order to demonize that which you oppose. Here is the correct view point.

If God offers salvation to those who He has not enabled to believe (if the doctrines of grace were actually true) then it is an insincere offer. The only offer that is sincere is one to someone who has the real opportunity to accept that offer of salvation.

Its best to stick to actual claims by those with whom you disagree with rather than creating these fallacious caricatures.

 

[Silverhair]

It is putting the power of salvation on yourself. Your decision, taking the decision away from God.

How does someone saying, yes I am a sinner and I need a saviour take the decision away from God?
It seems that for you God has to tell you that your a sinner so that He can save you but that would mean that you deny Rom 1:18-20.

 

[Revmitchell]

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

Can you support these statement with scripture? I genuinely ask because I have seen this claim made many times from reformed folks but have never seen it supported by scripture. Genuinely trying to understand your support for this.

 

[Silverhair]

The work of God Holy Spirit in bringing someone to salvation is always effective.

Also, just to be clear, even though I’ve described the work of God Holy Spirit as a series of “steps” (regeneration, conviction, drawing, response to the gospel with faith, etc) this supernatural event can be essentially instantaneous.

peace to you

So, in calvinism, the Holy Spirit is selective in who He regenerates, convicts etc. and it is ALWAYS effective. If that were true then all those that He does not regenerate, convict etc. have a valid excuse as to why they are not saved "the Holy Spirit did not regenerate, convict etc. me". But the bible says their not saved because they do not believe but if the Holy Spirit does not regenerate, convict etc. them why would they believe so now you have made God the one responsible for them not believing.

 

[Silverhair]

When one's view of the Atonement is small, then it is no wonder that he cannot articulate Calvinism, which is 'merely' the Gospel.

When ones view of the atonement is wrong they will usually say that "calvinism is the gospel" or some such silly think.

 

[Silverhair]

Wrong again. Classic Arminianism asserts conditional election, which is an assertion of some virtue in man required to be saved.

That just shows that you do not really understand Arminianism. From what I have read it is much closer to biblical theology than calvinism.