Which Points of Calvinism Do You Believe?

If one embraces Calvinism, he must by definition embrace all the points.
There's no such animal as a 3- or 4-point Calvinists.

What they are are non-Calvinists at best, Arminians at worst.

 

Aren't there some respected theologians that claim to be 4 pointers? L.S. Chafer comes to mind.

 

Scripture

I do not believe in any, not one of them can be found in scripture.

We all know that the calvinist 5 points was to developed as a defend against the arminist points which I do not agree with either.

If you believe in one side of the coin does not mean the other side of the same coin is wrong.

Men cannot understand stand how all scripture works to gether so it is easier to place it in an easy accertment. When you do this you limit the word of God to a five point that you can find scripture to agree with. They made scripture also agree with murdering witches to.

I see the five points only limits the word of God. We have too much to learn from the word of God instead of putting it in some kind of box

 

I voted "none" since the terms aren't defined.

It's like a JW asking me if I believe in Jesus Christ.


Please define what you mean by "Jesus Christ".

 

How about 25 million or so websites at your fingertips, all defining Calvinism.

Find Google in the upper right corner and start your homework.

 

Since when did "eternal security" become an exclusive point of Calvinism? Non-Calvinist Evangelicals-Fundamentalists have believed and taught eternal security all along.

 

eternal security like OSAS are simply terms that are commonly used. The correct wording is perseverance of the saints. He is eternally secure because God secured him in his election to grace. He perseveres because he is saved.

On the other hand, if a mortal man can will himself into heaven, he can will himself out of heaven. What, pray tell, hinders his free will?

Cheers,

Jim

 

Sorry, Jim, but I'll have to disagree. I normally don't get involved in these C vs. A debates (just not interested, did it all decades ago). But I have to say on this one issue that to the typical non-Calvinist evangelical/fundandamentalist, the meaning of eternal security is not perseverance of the saints, but preservation of the saints. I'm sure I could get into the doctrinal books, etc., that I have to show you what I mean, but I don't really want to take the time. If you get it, you get it, if you don't, that's fine with me too.

God bless.

 

Very true, Jim. That is the very statement that an Assembly of
God person gave me when I was trying to convince him that he could not lose his salvation. I had quoted to him the first part of 1 Pet 1:5 "who are kept by the power of God". He came back the next day and told me that I had left off the rest of it "through faith unto salvation". He said this proves that God can only keep you saved as long as you maintain your faith. I had no reply. Only the doctrine of perseverence fully explaines the verse and makes losing salvation impossible. Our faith is ours by possession, but not by origination. Saving faith is the gift of God whereby we are saved. Understanding this, we see what it means "Kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation". By grace, by the power of God; these are the precursors to the faith through which God saves us. Faith which originates from God can not fail to save.

 

Just to have some fun... but does that include Hunts or Caners definition of Calvinism. :laugh:

 

Agreed! Eternal security was taught long before the reformation.

But just to be on the safe side - What distinction is there really between the two?

If it were not for the Preservation of the Saint there would be no Perseverance of the Saints who continue in the Faith because of the Eternal Work done in their hearts. Perseverance follows the Preservation but with out both there is not doctrine concerning Eternal security which is marked in the natural by a changed life and in the spiritual by a changed heart. IMHO.

Editted In >>>
Wikipedia states this about the Point of "Perseverence of the Saints":

With that clarification and scriptural authority I acknowledge my agreement therein.

 

One more thing though:

It is a bit of a misnomer to put the points up without clarification of definition.

Most people here these terms but have a different understanding of those points defined.

So when one hits the "Total Depravity" they most times don't realize (as Non-Cals) that the Calvinist definition is: (wikipedia)

Now depending on what bent of Calvinism you hold to - you can hold that man NEVER does anything good and that God intervenes in sinful mans life to make him do even the most basic good (like provide food for his children). That without God we would not even smile but hate and kill each other. (I know many Calvinists who hold to that type of Total depravity).

You also have those who hold to man can do no 'salvic' good or good that is meritorious of salvation. (Live good enough, you go to heaven). But that man can do good in the general sense but that even it is tempered with sin (example of tempered with sin - involves some form of selfishness, pride ext...). Yet they hold to scriptures like the scriptures state "their righteousness is a filthy rags" which show an ability to do good but not without it being tempered with sin. (I know many of these as well)

We need more clarificaiton on your this. Pease set forth the definitions as it would be more help to better answer with honest objectivity.

 

They are not Calvinists, no matter what they call themselves.

Some hard-liners say you're either Calvinist or Arminian with no in-between.

But those who hold to eternal security of the believer aren't true Arminians, so I just label them (which includes most Baptists) as non-Cals. Fewer arguments that way.

 

You rascal, you had to throw them in there, didn't you?

Allan, you're one of those folks who at least knows what Calvinism is. You accept the Calvinist definition. You just disagree with the theology and say why.

The intellectual dishonest among us constantly mis-define and mis-characterize the 5 points, setting up straw men and easily knocking them down. The intellectully honest among us (you, for example) accept the definitions without accepting the doctrines.

Maybe intellectually dishonest is too harsh a description for such folks. Maybe they just don't know that they're talking about.

 

Well, since you are graciously agreeing. :smilewinkgrin:

The difference IMO is in the emphasis. If I am kept by God I am secure, not if I persevere it proves I am secure. In my view the chastening of the believer becomes important as soon as we begin to talk about perseverence, but chastening does not have as its goal the eternal security of the believer.

:thumbs:

 

True, but chastening is due to security of the believer that they WILL continue in the relationship BECAUSE they are kept by God.
I agree emphasis is key but all work together for the same purpose. That both the physical and spiritual bear forth the same truth.

I have heard it stated (and I agree):

Works are the outward evedence of those saved and secured in Christ.
We are not to tell a person they are saved that is Gods job.
We are to tell them how to be saved and to also be fruit inspectors. Not to tell them they are lost but to warn them them that they bear no precious friut of a changed life of which scripture declares WILL BE the case, and for them to examine THEMSELVES to know whether they are truly IN the Faith or just professing it.

 

I agree with this.:thumbsup: :jesus:

 

What is generally termed "Calvinism" is not necessarily what John Calvin believed and taught, but is taken from the Synod at Dort, and is termed as such. CAlvin was already dead for some years, so this is a misnomer.

Secondly, there are five points, not six, taken from the canons of Dort, so the comparison/distinction between "Perseverance of the saints" and "eternal; security" are a misnomer, and a false dichotomy.

And I, for one, fully hold to the eternal security of the believer, but do not subject my view to that of any false dichotomy. For theological purposes, I would describe myself as neither a Calvinist nor Arminian (another false dichotomy), and do not accept the more extreme version of the five points of either 'system', for in the final analysis, both proclaim some version of a "perseverance of the saints", and that makes them be of "the same difference".

One of my closest friends has described it this way:

"Calvinism is a great system. There are only two things wrong with it. It blasphemes God, and it de-humanizes man. Outside of that, it is a great system." [W. Hardy Housman, (Major, U. S. Army, ret.)]

I fully agree with his analysis. :thumbsup:

Ed

 

Well , Ed , you and Housman are welcome to your fond embrace of Pelagianism . No smilies .