Which Points of Calvinism Do You Believe?

Now you are simply being dishonest. Here is a post from 12-28 where you misrepresented Calvinism:

Let's look at it.

1. You misrepresent Calvinism. Calvinism does not teach salvation outside of faith. Some people do but they generally reject then label Calvinist. Calvinists believe that faith is necessary for salvation. You can see this very clearly in the Westminster Standards. Most do not believe that faith is necessary for regeneration.

2. You misrepresent Calvinism. In Calvinism, faith is not the result of salvation. For most Calvinists, faith is the result of regeneration. By changing "regeneration" to "salvation" you misrepresent what Calvinism believes.

3. You misrepresent Calvinism. Calvinism believes that 2 Peter 3:9 says exactly what it says. They simply believe it says something different than you believe it says. I actually agree with you though you almost talked me out of it a while back. I don't take the standard Calvinist position on this verse, though I have before. But you misrepresented Calvinism.

4. You mispresent Calvinism again. In Calvinism, reprobation is not unconditional. Reprobation is conditioned on sin.

So webdog, you are 0-4 and condemned by your own words. I gave the link so everyone can go and look and see I didn't make this up. You misrepresented Calvinism, and then you were dishonest when you claimed you didn't. If you really think that you did not misrepresent Calvinism, then you prove my assertion that you do not know what you are talking about and you need to learn.

And this is just one post out of hundreds where you do stuff like this.

"Nothing but malicious false statements"?

Just a little bit ago I described what I believe about regeneration and faith. Was that a malicious false statement? Or were you dishonest when you said I spread nothing but malicious false statements?

You can't have it both ways. If I make "nothing but malicious false statements," then my statements regarding my own position on regeneration and faith were malicious and false. If my statements regarding my position on regeneration and faith were true, then your statement is proved to be false.

I know what my own position believes. That is the position I gave. I think Tom's position is wrong, and his position is different than mine. So to say I misrepresented my own position is pure lunacy. My position is that one need not believe all five points to be a Calvinist. I didn't misrepresent that in the least. I think most Calvinists agree with me, but either way, that is not an issue of Calvinism, but rather of what Calvinists believe.

I don't think you know if Tom is dead on. You think he is because he agrees with you. But that doesn't make him right. I would imagine most Calvinists would disagree with Tom, but even at that, that is not an issue of Calvinism, but rather of what Calvinists believe that is not essential to the theology.

 

I don't have time to finish my thoughts on this thread, will have to come back later.

 

I in 3 of the 5 as I didn't realize that eternal security was one of them. I think Perserverance of the Saints takes care of the eternal security question. I hold to election, but probably not exactly as a Calvanist would describe it. I hold to Irristable Grace but I think God chooses to limit its use. I believe in Total Depravity but believe that God supplies enough light for man to respond to. I am completely and adamantly against Limited Atonement and believe it really is presenting a God the Bible does not present. I believe in Unlimited Atonement as most of Scripture agrees with.
I also believe that there are far better things we as Christians can be doing than to discuss this issue that finds great Bible Scholars since the Reformation disagreeing about. You will find me agreeing with Dispensationalists, Pre-Trib Rapturists -- schools like Dallas Theological Seminary, Western Baptist in Portland, Denver Seminary, and hundreds like them filled with great scholars. I call myself a 3.5% Calvanist despite the fact that the 5 pointers say I can't logically do that. I personally am at the point where I believe that 5 pointers are "almost" inventing a new Gospel by presenting a God that doesn't align with Scripture-imho--and I have discussed this enough with 5 pointers that I know they pretty much think the same of anyone who isn't them. I'm not willing to say I do believe that, but moving in that direction the more I interact with strick Reformation folks.

 

I think now you are deliberately trying to be deceptive. My post on 12/28 was in response to this:

Originally Posted by Rippon
No one is saved before they believe ! We are able to believe because we were elected - belief is a fruit of election . I don't know where your take of 2 Peter 3:9 has to do with this . If God does not want anyone to perish that would conflict with too many clear Scriptures where He has hardened hearts and blinded eyes so that they would not come to believe on Him .

Unfortuanately, Tom's position is the widely accepted by cal's and non cal's alike that all five points stand and fall together. Your view is the unorthodox one, so yes...you are misrepresenting your own position.

...and your position is wrong, meaning you are representing the "doctrine" of calvinism.

This is double talk. If you are a "calvinist", you believe "calvinism"...all five points...TULIP.

Last time I checked Tom was a calvinist. I'm not. I hardly think he agrees with me.

 

How can there NOT be a calvinist position on the matter? That's ludicrous. TULIP is what it is. Whatever each letter describes, is the doctrine of calvinism.

 

TULIP is not the sum of Calvinism. Moreover, there is no consensus among Calvinists as to how many (and what points) are necessary to be called a Calvinist.

 

Calling oneself a Calvinist (1, 2, 3, 4-pointer) doesn't make you one. It's the same as if you believe exactly like the Catholics but call yourself a Baptist. You ain't one.

But this is the only place I'll make that argument, because this is a forum for arguing. Pastor Larry and I don't see this the same way, but that's okay. We're arguing semantics, not scripture.

I get a little nervous in high places. That's when you can call me a 5-point chicken.

 

And in response to that you stated four clear misrepresentations. Posting this as the basis of your post makes it more egregious since it is clearly stated what Calvinists believe and you still said otherwise. Why did you accept what Rippon said about what he believes? Why did you turn around and post four inaccurate and misleading statements?

You are hilarious. First, how can I misrepresent my own position? My own position is that you do not have to hold to all five points to be a Calvinist. I think I clearly stated that as my position, and I certainly didn't misrepresent it.

Secondly, I have read a lot of people and talked to a lot of people, and aside from a minority of people on this board, I have never heard a Calvinist say that one must hold to all five points to be a Calvinist. I know there are some who believe that. Tom is one of them. But I think they are in the minority. Furthermore, it doesn't matter. That's not a scriptural issue. Feel free to disagree.

As you should know (since you have done all this study), that "doctrine of Calvinism" does not address how many points you must hold to to be a Calvinist.

That's incorrect. There are issues about which Calvinists disagree. But "Calvinism" as I have used it before and explained talks about the sine qua non of the issue. I happen to believe all five points and can defend them scripturally so I am not concerned with my "credentials." But I know many Calvinists who do not hold to all five points. I think they are crazy ... But they exist.

He says you have to hold to all five points to be a Calvinist. You say you have to hold to all five points to be a Calvinist. That means you agree (unless you want a new definition of agree).

Now rather than niggle about words and semantics, I want to know why you posted four blatant misrepresentations of Calvinism and then told us that you haven't misrepresented anything?

 

Don't anybody try to get Pastor Larry and me into an argument over labels. Ain't gonna happen.

 

I respect the fact that everyone has a right to believe as they wish. However, your statement is a classic Philosophical approach to Christianity. So it is with Calvinism. To deny free will you define is as one would who's philosophy only leads in circles. To say that man's free will to believe can not result in eternal security is in my opinion foolishness and that is the unending argument that many Calvinist posit. The difference in what I would call real Christian theology and Calvinism is the approach. Calvinism is philosophical and seeks to define Scripture in that manner. True Christian theology refused this evil and only considers the teaching of God's Spirit and the truth of God's word. We work at keeping all angles of philosophy out of our theology.

Gordon

 

Just a few comments about "salvation outside of faith"

(1) If a person has to be saved to be saved that is salvation outside of faith.

(2) Some Calvinist state emphatically that a person is "regenerated" then infused with a mystical un-biblical believing faith and force to believe, so that they can be double regenerated, born again.

(3) Question to you:

(A) Do you believe that a person is first "regenerated" saved or brought to life first?

(B) Do you believe that this person once saved or "regenerated" is then forced to receive a special gift of faith which makes him or her believe?

If you do then you believe that a person must first be saved to get saved or ins double regeneration.

Gordon.

 

Not sure what this means, but I think I agree.

REally? I have never seen a Calvinist state emphaticallyi that one is "regenerated then infused with a mystical un-biblical believing faith and force to believe, so that they can be double regenerated, born again." Can you give us a citation or two that we could take a look at?

No, I explained this a coupel of page ago.

No, and neither do the people who blieve that regeneration precedes faith.

Again, I don't know of anyone who thinks you need to first get saved before you get saved.

You are likely referring to regeneration precediing faith. Did you even read what I said above? If you would simply read what we believe, you would be better suited to participate here.

Regeneration is not the same as salvation. I don't know how much clearer to put that. To be regenerated before faith is not the same as being saved before faith. Please don't make that mistake again. Your philosophical approach to this is lacking.

 

I just checked "Eternal Security" because I either disagree with other points or they are defined from a Calvinist viewpoint.

I see that it is as I feared awhile back -- The BT & BS forum has turned into a Calvinist-Arminian forum.

I wish they would bring back the Calvinist-Arminian forum so this forum could go back to topics that are not necessarily Calvinist-Arminian debates. :tongue3:

 

List all the verses that support "regeneration" prior to faith.

 

Have you ever hear of idiomatic expressions. Some of you Calvinist go to great lengths to stretch a gnat around a telephone pole. I personally believe some, not all, get so wrapped up in your philosophy that you blind yourself to truth. From my side of the debate that is a Calvinism is - philosophical Christianity.

While you make a big deal out of the two words yet if one were to take you to the Greek and clearly demonstrate the falseness of the Calvinist view you would real in your seat. So in all fairness, not trying to be mean here but truthful, you are fishing in a pond for nothing and claiming you have something. So that you understand the illogicalness of that statement it is exactly what Calvinism is - illogical. Now don’t go and get your feelings hurt because I don’t agree with your view.

Answer this question:

Did God know “foreknow” he would decree? Yes or No

I did not ask what He decreed I only ask if you understand God as having foreknowledge of His decree/s. You decide weather it is singular or plural but either way did God have foreknowledge of it or them?

 

Larry do me a favor and in one word outline the process of salvation as you see it. What exactly do you believe is the process.

Here is my one word outline and you can return in kind.

1. Lost
2. Hear
3. Faith
4. Regeneration

Regeneration = conversion or saved

 

Lets take a look at what the Scripture says on "regeneration"

To my knowledge there are only two verses in the NT that use the work “regeneration”. Here they are:

Matthew 19:28. And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

In Matthew’s verse it refers to the resurrection.

Titus 3:5. He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6. whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7. so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to {the} hope of eternal life.

The only verse in all the NT that deals with any relationship to salvation using the world regeneration is this one. There isn’t a process outline in this verse. In short God saved according to mercy by the Holy Spirit which means we are justified by faith and have eternal life.

You nor I can force this verse to support your view or mine. They are general statements about the conversion experience.

Romans is clear
(1) God sends a preacher or witness
(2) The witness or preacher tells people about the Grace of God
(3) These people hear
(4) Some believe and some do not

When a person hears something about something the something becomes the object of the discussion. At that point the data, facts, information related to the subject of the presentation is the object. One can either believe or not believe. Faith is something all men can exercise because they are created in the image of God. Man has the capacity to think and reason and trust. He can either trust in God’s plan or reject it and exercising faith is not work it is agreement with God or disagreement with God joined with surrender to his will verses your will. At that point regeneration takes place not before. You can't prove me wrong with one statement in the Bible where the word "regeneration" is used.

The reason Calvinism is not true is because it philosophically approaches the Scripture and forces on it arguments that can not be supported like this regeneration philosophy.

There are not clear definitive passage that teach that a man is “regenerated” brought back to life, or saved, or revitalized or awakened form death so that they can be given a gift of faith and then made to believe. Now where.

 

GS,

Pastor Larry already said "Regeneration is not the same as salvation. I don't know how much clearer to put that." You even quoted it two or three times. Don't you see that, because you are using a different definition of regeneration, it is a waste of time to argue about when it occurs?

 

There are good reasons to believe it. I just happen not to. I would recommend reading John Murray's Redemption: Accomplished and Applied. I don't want to take time to go through it all here.

I agree with that. I listed my complete ordo previously. The only issue is that regeneration is technically different than conversion (which is faith and repentance) and saved (which is the whole deal).

Calvinism begins with exegesis, and then correlates it. You do the same thing. it is not about a "philosophical approach" to Scripture.

I agree. But that's not really the issue.

Regeneration is the giving of spiritual life to the spiritually dead. That is how it is defined theologically.

 

This doesn't hold logically. For instance, "If a man can step off a roof by his own will, why can't he step back on?" The answer in both cases (assuming OSAS) is that the act puts the subject under the power of an external force (either gravity or an unconditionally-securing God). Therefore, "free will" is not logically inconsistent with OSAS.

I also agree with Tom Butler when he wrote

In a technical field such as theology, terms have to mean something definite. Those who do not define Calvinist terms in Calvinist ways just aren't Calvinists.

The goal in using any term should be clarity, not subterfuge.