Which Points of Calvinism Do You Believe?

JD,

That's what his book is all about... that election and free-will are not mutually exclusive. ( I do have his book, and read it carefully, but it's not with me right now.) He does hold to unconditional election, meaning that election is totally of God - He chose us not based on our choosing Him.

Of course, he would describe it differently than Reformed theologians, but he does insist on election, not just "foreknowledge" as predestination typically is watered down to mean.

FA

 

And Geisler's response in his revision of Chosen but Free nailed White for inconsistencies and a straw-man approach. I have read both books. Apparently Geisler's 1st book had some flaws (haven't seen his first edition). I actually read White's book before I ever read Geisler's book, or was even aware of it. But Geisler's revision certainly is much more logically and consistently defended than The Potter's Freedom. Essentially all White did there was use name-calling and straw-man tactics. He came across to me as arrogant. Geisler was very respectful of White.

Now, to say that Geisler's beliefs line up with Arminianism is ridiciculous. (Sorry, but it just isn't fair to Geisler to say that.) They do not. He would not accept any of the 5 Remonstrants (which the TULIP is a response to) as they are expressed. Now his position is clearly somewhere in the middle, but more closely aligned with the tenets of extreme Calvinism than extreme Arminianism. And he himself states that to be true. You may not agree with his position. But to label it as Arminian when it is not is wrong.

I have to make a point of this, because some Calvinists (in my experience - too many) have a habit of calling anything that is not 4 or 5 pt. Calvinism, Arminianism. To do so misrepresents the vast majority of Christianity. And I think the purpose of this thread is to try to recognize the distinctions that exist among those of us who embrace God's Word and some of the tenets of Reformed theology. It's not just black-white. There's a whole lot of gray in there.

I don't think the purpose of this thread is to defend or refute some of the tenets of either Calvinism or Arminianism. If you read Geisler's book he is very clear about what he believes. So let's be careful about misrepresenting someone, even if it happens unintentionally.

FA

 

Is "extreme Calvinism" holding to all 5 points in your estimation FA ?

Regarding Geisler ... In Robert Duncan Culver's Systematic under the heading of : Soteriology Applied , he says " for a vigorous advocacy of the Arminian-Semi-Pelagian view of the subject , see Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free ." (p.702)

In a footnote for page 703 Culver says : " Dr. Geisler attempts to put faith and repentance prior to regeneration . He asked me to review the manuscript before publication privately , which I did , seeking to dissuade the author from publishing it . Dr. Geisler is not ' easily entreated ' on this issue . "

 

Extreme Calvinism is not preaching the gospel at all. I remember years ago an old Calvinist say to a friend of mine who was preaching on the text, "For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son" and the old Calvinist said, "If God wanted to convert the heathen He would do it without your help young man"

 

How old are you Grahame? Did you go back in the past ? The line "If God wanted to convert the heathen He would do it without your help or mine ." was attributed to John Ryland Senior . Ryland was alleged to have said that to young missionary-minded Carey . But Ryland Jr. and others have disputed the quote .

 

I think you misunderstood me there Rippon. I am not saying that I refer to present day Calvinism as "extreme Calvinism," but that this is how Geisler refers to it. IMO, it is what it is today. It is Calvinism. But in reality, it does represent a theology somewhat different and more extreme than John Calvin himself held. Of course, Calvin's own theology evolved/changed over the years as he interacted with the RCC. But the same thing happend to Joseph Arminius, and I don't see any great value in arguing over such things.

FA

 

James or Jacob, not Joseph. And I assume that you mean his followers modified his ideas, and not that he himself changed. Do you?

 

Arminius did change his views over time. If I recall correctly, he originally held more to the Calvinist position. His non-Calvinist position was also misunderstood, and had to defend his position. One thing he defended was his belief in total depravity. That's why I refer to most people here as free-willers rather than Arminians. They don't agree with Arminius on the point of total depravity, and Arminius was adamant about it.

 

Yes, that is what I mean. The 5 remonstrants were not expressed by those two disciples of his as he would have expressed it.

 

It also could be argued that his position on eternal security was not as strongly expressed as is generally done in Arminian theology today. He allowed for the possibility of apostasy. He did not teach that a person who was not faithful, or too sinful, or perhaps commited a particular sin, could "lose" his salvation, as many do today.

Arminius felt strongest about unconditional election, and opposed predestination as described by classical (or high) Calvinism.

Arminius taught that God's election was an an election or choosing of believers - that those who believed in Christ were chosen - faith was a condition for election. I don't know but what he taught could be called corporate election.

FA

 

Labels Labels....shame shame shame!

For simplicity sake I includeeternal security in the "P" of TULIP, understanding that P does not exist without the others. for for sake of fun, and slightly incorrect labeling....I am a 2 point calvinist. I used to say 1.5 pt for because of the issue with the P. but I think God might allow a derivation from this manmade doctrine of predestination conjured up by the free will of a man who baptized babies. :tonofbricks:

I much prefer the acronym of the SBC President Dr. Frank Page:

G.R.A.C.E. (the SBC Church are now in the [P]age of Grace) :laugh:

G iven through Christ (Election)
R ejected through rebellion (Resistible Grace)
A accepted though faith (Freedom of the Will)
C hrist died for all (Unlimited Attonement)
E verlasting life (Security of the Believer)

Btw......if you so choose to, you may reject this doctrine.

:jesus:

K "Salvation is the result of Divine-Human Cooperation" --Frank Page

 

kmichael said:

I do so choose.

Welcome to the Baptist Board, kmichael

 

kmichael,

I think you and I have convergence here. Except I'm not really clear on the G -- given through Christ -- labeled as "election." Is that "corporate election"? If so, then I would differ there. I hold to "unconditional election" in a personal sense, except not as Reformed define that, of course, which presupposes no free will/agency.

And I'm also not clear on what Page means by "divine-human cooperation."

FA

 

It does rather seem that "G" contradicts "C"?

G iven through Christ (Election)
C hrist died for all (Unlimited Attonement)

If Christ died for all, then all would be saved according to "G"
For if he died for the elect and the elect were all, then the logical conclusion would be that all would be saved.

 

grahame,

Now you're talking like a Calvinist. One does not necessarily preclude the other - as I view it. Just because Christ died for all does not mean that all are elect or that all will be saved. That denies the free will of the "A" that Dr. Page embraces. I think you have to consider the "cooperation of the divine-human" that he endorses. But I am curious about what Dr. Page meant by "election" there.

FA

 

I think the correct term would be. Not that Christ died for all. But that his death is sufficient for all.

 

Do you believe that Christ's death bought false teachers and false prophets who are coming to damnation?? Given that kind of context that would sound pretty much like Christ death was for all but is not applied to all. Does scripture state anything of the kind?? You bet!

 

One must understand that this all comes from Dr. Page's book "Trouble with TULIP", a book that has been reviewed and spewed my many. I have not read it but have read a ton of commentary on it. As with any acronym, content can be lost in an attempt to fit a point to the letters. I think this is the case with the G/election part of G.R.A.C.E. Any alternative to TULIP must address election for is indeed a doctrine of Scripture. Grace is indeed "given" through Christ. I think I might as well agree that this is not what I perceive "election" to be. But we give Dr. Page "grace" as he formulated this many years ago. (If has been sugested to him that he "revise and extend his remarks" in a new edition.)

The quote on divine-human cooperation was Dr. Page basically defining synergy. In otherwords it takes both grace and faith to = salvation.

Now to election. And please understand that though I am 31, I am still a young (but eager) theologean (if I can call my self that). It is my view (current theory if you will) that salvation is not a result of election....but election is a result of salvation. (the foreknowledge of God plays a big part of this in certain passages of Scripture.) Abraham was chosen because of his faith. All the saint of God are chosen (elected) to a high calling. Each of our calling or election is different. If we all fullfilled God's will through our election, I think everyone in the world (or close to it) would be saved. But it is because of sin, that the elected church fails to adequately love, be a good example, share Christ, etc. Understand where I am going with this? At 30 years old I finally surrendered to my calling, my election.....what would have happened if I had surrendered years ago? It is my fault, your fault, Dr. Page's fault, Dr. Mohler's fault, and even Peter, Paul, and Mary's fault, that many will end up in hell. (indirectly)

This may be a stretch for some.....but no more than divine election to salvation. I will not believe that the Lord of Hosts predestined most of His creation to burn in hell. I believe in hell, I believe God will indeed send most of His creation there, but not because of His choice.

I hope to one day write a thesis on this as I believe this is a more accurate understanding of election. Thoughts?


K

 

kmichael,

This is a common position (your thoughts on election). That is referred to as the "simple foreknowledge" position by some. IOW, it essentially reduces God's predestination to foreknowledge. IMO God does not ignore His foreknowledge. Of course He knows all things. But the basis for His election/choosing is not that we would choose Him (believe) but was genuinely God choosing us.

For most it becomes a contradiction if God chose us and we also had free will at the same time. But IMO both are true. I like William Lane Craig's "middle knowledge" view on this, but there are other similar positions as well. There is also the Reformed/Augustinian position and the "open theism" position. It sounds like Dr. Page may have a simple foreknowledge position as well.

Uh, I take it that you hold to single predestination, if any. It is difficult to understand how God hardened Pharaoh's heart. But as a result, many Egyptians came to believe in God. It is also true that Pharaoh hardened his own heart - I guess this is that cooperation that Dr. Page spoke about.

FA

 

Allan,

Just FWIW, IMO that 2 Peter 2 text is referring to false prophets who may have been unbelievers, but to believers as well which is why it refers to the way of truth being spoken evil of. But I think I agree with your position regarding Christ dying for all, but it only being effective for those who trust in Him.

Just FYI, this is a Reformed position - for the most part. IMO Christ died for all but it was only appropriated by the elect.

FA