Which Points of Calvinism Do You Believe?

With all these differences of opinion (and that's what they are: opinions), one would have to footnote every one of the items in the OP. Each footnote would be at least two pages long. Nah, three........ four?

 

In post #133, which I repeat a portion of above, I gave Bible reasons why a limited atonement is an extra-biblical teaching and antithetical to Scripture. Thus far none of the pro-Calvinists have chosen to address these passages.


LM

 

I have addressed these passages numerous times, as have many others on here. It gets tiresome doing it again and again, and it's pretty obvious you'll never agree anyway.

 

Answers to Calvinism

John 3:16, Isaiah 53:6, 1 John 2:2 effectively and completely unravel Calvinism's Limited Atonement.

I know we are never going to agree on Calvinism. I am not trying to settle or win a debate that has been going on for centuries.

My primary goal is to provide the answers to Calvinism for the folks who lurk and read these threads. This way those who may not immediatley recognize Calvinism when they come across it will be better able to recognize the red-flags when they hear or read them.

I strongly encourage people to visit and read Pastor George Zeller's page on The Dangers of Reformed (Calvinistic) Theology.

That link is a main page with several articles that contain additional links to expanded discussions of the problems with Calvinistic theology.

Zeller's articles are fair, documented and answers the issues with Scripture.


LM

 

Lou, and I can give you links that defend and support Calvinistic theology as biblical.

By default I was an Arminian, but I have given it up as the best explanation for what the bible says about my salvation.

I admit that there are tensions in Scripture with either position, whether Arminian or Calvinism. But with other matters of the bible, I am happy to live with the tensions. I take comfort in what Paul says in 1 Cor 13, "For now we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, as I am fully known" (HCSB).

 

I believe in total depravity, & that's all. Every person who knows right from wrong must come to Christ in order to be saved.

OSAS? Newp! Every bible version I own has Hebrews 6:4-6 in it, & no attempt at re-defining its words will change its message.

 

Robyc , what do you mean by total depravity ? It has been my experience that many non-Cals do not appreciate the extent of human depravity . If they did then the other 4 points would fall right in place theologically .

You had a puzzling line : " Every person who knows right from wrong must come to Christ in order to be saved ."

Everyone does indeed know right from wrong . But that does not mean that they will of their own accord ( what you might call "free-will ) submit themselves to Christ . It doesn't work that way if you actually believe in TD.

 

Lou & Clark

You've heard of the famous Lewis and Clark , haven't you ? Well , I have been reading some threads on Sharper Iron and discovered that some of Lou's views line-up with the ultra-Arminian Clark Pinnock -- he of Open Theist infamy .

A number of men from the Calvinistic side have engaged Lou . I do not personally know any of them . I have not communicated with any of them . But from what they have written they seem rather biblically solid . Mark Snoeberger , Roger Coon , Roger Carlson ,Thomas Francis , and Larry Rogier are among some of the men whom I have grown to respect .

Lou , you know the score . You have been presented with our position for quite some time . George Zeller is not as fair as you claim . Zeller believes that "extreme Calvinists" think that the cross was designed for the elect . I've got news for you Lou , it is not a fringe number of Calvinists who subscribe to that belief -- it's a central tenet .

I'l have more to say about Zeller later .

 

Don't have to redefine its words. Accept them as they are written, then rightly apply them. Hebrews is written primarily to the Hebrew people. That doesn't mean we toss it out. It means we learn from it, while rightly dividing and interpreting the scriptures there spiritually, not intellectually. Intellect=flesh, and flesh leads us down the primrose path to man's interpretation, not God's intent.

Paul (if he is the writer) understands that the Jewish Christians don't quite get what Paul has otherwise written, and what they have otherwise heard from followers of Christ. He writes the Book of Hebrews to assist their understanding. In essence, what Paul is saying is that IF IF IF it were possible for a Christian Jew to reject Christ, to go back to Judaism, to be lost, there would be no more sacrifice for sin! He wants to convince them that while the temptation of returning to The Law is great, Christ has redeemed them -- that it is totally unnecessary! It won't save them, it won't do them one ounce of good -- Christ already has! And His Mercy endureth forever! His yoke is easy, and His burden is light, compared to the whole of The Law and Jewish traditions!

A second and separate interpretation of Hebrews 6 is that it is tribulational. That is, it goes something like this: If you Hebrews, keepers of the Law, sin wilfully (hearing the word of truth and rejecting it), after having been witnessed to by the 144,000 during the Great Tribulation, there is no longer a sacrifice for sins. You were given an opportunity to accept Christ as Savior by Jesus Himself. You rejected Him. You had Him crucified. Now here we are telling you about Him again, and you're going to reject Him again? Just remember - there is a fearful judgment coming which shall devour His adversaries!

Bottom line: We cannot rush to judgment about the interpretation of scripture. 1 Corinthians 2:1-16 is our rock-solid foundation, before and after which we humble ourselves in prayer for Holy Spirit spiritual enlightenment. Amen!

 

I took a long hiatus from this board because of the continued rancor between Calvinism and Arminianism. I see that not much has changed!

 

Bill , it's so good to see you again ! Don't be such a stranger .

 

I've been hanging out on the Puritan Board. I had to come back here to get my Baptist fix! :laugh:

 

Can you provide a link for that board? I'd be curious as to what it's like.

 

Npetreley , you have to get out-and-about more often .

 

LOL! Tell me about it. 54 yrs old. Single dad. 2 kids, 13 and 10. I don't get out at all.

 

IMO the key to the Reformed soteriology (the TULIP) is total depravity. It naturally leads to their ordo salutis of regeneration before faith and monergism rather than synergism.

FA

 

This is true, though many people do not really believe in total depravity the same way we do.
They somehow think that we are totally sinful but somehow we can choose to get out of it.

 

The Order of...

FA:

You raise an important point, and are right on target. In the Lordship Salvation (LS) debates I addressed this very issue because LS partly flows from Calvinism's view of Total Depravity, which leads to regeneration before faith.

Following is the link to the article I wrote on the ordo salutis as it relates to the Lordship discusssion. It is relevant to this discussion.

Lordship's (Out of Order) Salvation


LM

 

LM,

You and I line up on free grace. I think I'm gonna have to purchase your book through Amazon. Only issue I have with it (and your article) is the use of the KJV.

I personally have recently taken to referring to myself as a moderate Calvinist, as Norman Geisler does. Though I imagine that most Calvinists would not accept this position as "moderate Calvinist" if the ordo salutis does not have regeneration prior (logically) to faith.

My view of "repentance" does not align so much with Zane Hodges (head of the free grace movement), though I see him as the foremost exegete of our time. I see repentance as something which can be appropriate for the unbeliever, though I do not see it as "turning from sin." IMO, the focus on METANOIA/METANOEW has to be the mind. To call it "turning from sin" places the focus on our actions.

Gotta go,

FA

 

Hi FA:

Again we are on taget. We are again in agreement on what you note about repentance. You might to rea an artuce I did n this subject at my blog. It is titled, How Does The Lordship Advocate Define Repentance? I think you'' enjoy it.

I trust you will find my book helpful in defining the debate, many have.

Well, as for the KJV, that is what I am comfortable with. If you post at my site and use the NIV, I am going to rent my garment and shriek, "HERESY!!!!"

Kidding! I allow for soul liberty and autonomy of the local church on the choice of text/versions issue. Paraphrases, however, are another matter.

Take care,


Lou