Which Points of Calvinism Do You Believe?

[Benjamin]

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.

What about free will being consistent as per prevenient grace up to the point of a free will response to recieve a free gift and be sealed in Christ? Is one then being sealed in the Spirit not locked into the position of God’s Providential Grace that exists with free will while in the nature of flesh but in spirit never fully away from the convicting spirit that would be against that will, not in the sense of any longer being free spiritually, but bought and paid for freely in full by the free acceptance of a free gift and always in accordance of being convicted by belief unto salvation?

 

[Ed Edwards]

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.

[sarcasm=on]Thank you for artifically discriminating against me.[/sarcasm]

I believe in all of Calvin's points but the 'i' of 'Tulip': Irresistible Grace.

 

[grahame]

Since when did "eternal security" become an exclusive point of Calvinism?

I think it was because he couldn't spell "TULIP" :smilewinkgrin: A bit like "ye olde shoppe"

 

[grahame]

[sarcasm=on]Thank you for artifically discriminating against me.[/sarcasm]

I believe in all of Calvin's points but the 'i' of 'Tulip': Irresistible Grace.

Sounds a bit like a new perfume doesn't it.

 

[Tom Butler]

[sarcasm=on]Thank you for artifically discriminating against me.[/sarcasm]

I believe in all of Calvin's points but the 'i' of 'Tulip': Irresistible Grace.

That's interesting, since most of the 4-pointers reject the L (Limited Atonement).

When someone says "I'm a Calvinist" I immediately think he's a 5-pointer.

But someone like you, and most Baptists who hold to Preservation and Perserverance of the Saints (the P) definitely don't qualify as Arminian. That's why I use the term non-Calvinist. But you don't like that one, I take it.

So, do you have a better, more descriptive name for your view? We already have 1-pointers, 2-pointers, 3-pointers and 4-pointers.

I thought about Modified Calvinist, but that still requires one to say how modified he is. Any ideas?

 

[Ed Edwards]

...
So, do you have a better, more descriptive name for your view? We already have 1-pointers, 2-pointers, 3-pointers and 4-pointers.

I thought about Modified Calvinist, but that still requires one to say how modified he is. Any ideas?

Yes, I have a term: BIBLE BELIEVER :wavey:

 

[Tom Butler]

Re: the term Bible Believer.

Uh, I think the 5-pointers have already spoken for that one.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Re: the term Bible Believer.

Uh, I think the 5-pointers have already spoken for that one.

Good point, i guess? Maybe your nomenclature is as good as any?

Personally I'm still trying to spell Areminian and Armenian
and keep up which is which ('Armenian' is a person
frokm Armenia')

Sometimes I think Calvin knew how God works;
Arminius knew how people work?

 

[Tom Butler]

Good morning Ed,

I appreciate your sense of humor. A light touch is welcome amid all this serious discussion.

In a spirit of charity, I now decree that both Calvinists, Arminians, and all those in between may declare themselves "biblicists."

You have aroused my curiosity, though. Would you care to elaborate on why you accept the L in TULIP, but not the I? This certainly sets you apart from every other 4-pointer.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The four point Calvinists who reject limited atonement are sometimes called Amyraldian.

The four point Calvinists who reject irresistable grace but not limited atonement are sometimes called strange. ... Or Ed ...

Seriously, I wondered about that when I saw it. I have never heard of someone rejecting the I but not the L.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Good morning Ed,

I appreciate your sense of humor. ...

You have aroused my curiosity, though. Would you care to elaborate on why you accept the L in TULIP, but not the I? This certainly sets you apart from every other 4-pointer.

Short answer:
I don't believe in Limited Atonement like Calvinists.
I believe that Atonement is limited to 'Whosoever will'

Luk 9:23-24 (KJV1611 Edition):
And he said to them all, If any man will come after me,
let him denie himselfe, and take vp his crosse daily, and follow me.
Luk 9:24 For whosoeuer will saue his life, shall lose it:
but whosoeuer will lose his life for my sake, the same shall saue it.

Mar 8:34 (KJV1611 Edition):And when he had called the people vnto him,
with his disciples also, he said vnto them,
Whosoeuer will come after me, let him denie himselfe,
and take vp his crosse and follow mee.

Whosoever won't follow Jesus won't be atoned.

 

[Rippon]

Ed , I believe in particular redemption . Christ did not design the atonement for those whom he did not die . The atonement is limited or specific to those whom He makes willing . Due to man's natural depravity and inability -- no one can will to come to the Lord .

 

[Faith alone]

I usually refer to myself as a "tUp." My view of the total depravity of man is different than the Reformed viewpoint, as is my view of the perseverance of the saints, which I refer to as the "preservation of the saints" (or "eternal security"). The "U" is capitalized since I accept it fully, though I do hold strongly to the free will of the individual as well. If we could not will (choose) to come to Him, then why all of the appeals? They make no sense otherwise. Yet I am convinced that both are true at the same time. I do not imagine that anyone here has quite the same position as I do. A philosophical position which embraces "middle knowledge" as described by William Lane Craig has enabled me to logically defend this position - holding firmly to election and free will at the same time. (It's a position similar to that which Norman Geisler holds in Chosen But Free, yet IMO his philosophical handling leaves something to be desired at times.)

I find myself agreeing with so much that is said in the TULIP, but I always find something about the manner in which it is described that does not allow me to accept it fully.

I react most strongly to irresistible grace and limited atonement (I imagine the most common divergence).


And the way the perseverance of the saints is often expressed it sounds as if the person does not really have assurance of salvation.; there are so many conditions added. That assurance must be focused on Christ, and what he did, once for all, and not at all on anything we have done. Faith is merely realizing this truth. The way I often see the "P" described is a pretty shallow recognition of God's sovereignty in this area. He did it all. We do zip. No "buts" allowed. No "ifs" allowed. Even expressions like, "We are saved by faith alone but the faith that saves is not alone" are merely dodges, IMO, for someone who perhaps does not really believe in eternal security nor in salvation by faith alone. Either you believe in faith alone, or you do not. Either Christ did it all, on the cross, or there's something of value which we can add to His work. Ephesians 2:8, 9 says there is nothing about which we can boast.

As my moniker suggests, I do hold firmly to "faith alone." I chose this username because it's perhaps the single area that has been most abused these days, and is so misunderstood.

I am quite busy during the week, so I may not be able to respond very quickly.

FA

 

[Faith alone]

Short answer:
I don't believe in Limited Atonement like Calvinists.
I believe that Atonement is limited to 'Whosoever will'

Ed,

Then actually you do not believe in Limited atonement (particular atonement) as expressed in the TULIP, right? (My position is the same as yours, but I call it unlimited atonement.)

Or are you saying that Christ only died for the elect - but that is described as those who choose eternal life?

FA

 

[Faith alone]

That's interesting, since most of the 4-pointers reject the L (Limited Atonement).

When someone says "I'm a Calvinist" I immediately think he's a 5-pointer.

But someone like you, and most Baptists who hold to Preservation and Perserverance of the Saints (the P) definitely don't qualify as Arminian. That's why I use the term non-Calvinist. But you don't like that one, I take it.

So, do you have a better, more descriptive name for your view? We already have 1-pointers, 2-pointers, 3-pointers and 4-pointers.

I thought about Modified Calvinist, but that still requires one to say how modified he is. Any ideas?

Tom,

Well, Norman Geisler refers to himself as a "moderate calvinist." I think that fits since he holds to U (as I do) and the P (as I do, when expressed as "preservation of the saints.") He also holds a fairly strong "T" position as well, so perhaps he should be considered a 3-pt. Calvinist. Oh, I believe that Geisler also refers to the common Calvinist position as "extreme Calvinism," partially based on the idea that John Calvin himself did not hold to it as strongly as is expressed today. That is to be distinguished from "hyper Calvinism," as in RC Sproul, for example.

I sometimes call myself a "moderate Calvinist" as otherwise people misintepret my position. I think that moderate Calvinism refers to someone who embraces "eternal security" and "faith alone" (which is not typically part of the TULIP, but IMO is a critical part of the Reformed position). I think that those two points most distinguish between Calvinism and Arminianism. Too many people who embrace those two points above agree partially wirth the concerns of Arminianism regarding Calvinism.

Just some thoughts on this.

FA

 

[Faith alone]

Re: the term Bible Believer.

Uh, I think the 5-pointers have already spoken for that one.

Uh, that is a matter of opinion.

 

[Tom Butler]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Butler
Re: the term Bible Believer.
Uh, I think the 5-pointers have already spoken for that one.

Uh, that is a matter of opinion.

I'm feeling in a generous mood tonight I give you permission to use it, too.

 

[J.D.]

Tom,

Well, Norman Geisler refers to himself as a "moderate calvinist." I think that fits since he holds to U (as I do) and the P (as I do, when expressed as "preservation of the saints.") He also holds a fairly strong "T" position as well, so perhaps he should be considered a 3-pt. Calvinist. Oh, I believe that Geisler also refers to the common Calvinist position as "extreme Calvinism," partially based on the idea that John Calvin himself did not hold to it as strongly as is expressed today. That is to be distinguished from "hyper Calvinism," as in RC Sproul, for example.

I sometimes call myself a "moderate Calvinist" as otherwise people misintepret my position. I think that moderate Calvinism refers to someone who embraces "eternal security" and "faith alone" (which is not typically part of the TULIP, but IMO is a critical part of the Reformed position). I think that those two points most distinguish between Calvinism and Arminianism. Too many people who embrace those two points above agree partially wirth the concerns of Arminianism regarding Calvinism.

Just some thoughts on this.

FA

I would be shocked to learn that Giesler holds to the "U". Double check that and let me know. I don't have his book, or else I would check myself.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I don't believe in Limited Atonement like Calvinists.
I believe that Atonement is limited to 'Whosoever will'

Luk 9:23-24 (KJV1611 Edition):
And he said to them all, If any man will come after me,
let him denie himselfe, and take vp his crosse daily, and follow me.
Luk 9:24 For whosoeuer will saue his life, shall lose it:
but whosoeuer will lose his life for my sake, the same shall saue it.

Mar 8:34 (KJV1611 Edition):And when he had called the people vnto him,
with his disciples also, he said vnto them,
Whosoeuer will come after me, let him denie himselfe,
and take vp his crosse and follow mee.

Whosoever won't follow Jesus won't be atoned.

Ed, This is the typical explanation for limited atonement.

Jesus' death was sufficient for all who have ever sinned. Had God decreed to save all who have ever lived, no more would be required. Had God decreed to save only one person, no less would be required.

Jesus' death is efficient only for the elect, those who believe. It is particular in that it was not designed to save anyone but those who are elect, the ones who believe.

So what you have stated Calvinism doesn't disagree with. We recognize certain aspects of the atonement that you do not address however.

 

[Rippon]

Norm G. calls himself a moderate Calvinist , but his beliefs line up with Arminiansim . James White had several informative programs on Geisler regarding his ideas on "The Points " . White's book " The Potter's Freedom" nailed Geisler's position to the wall . No matter how much Geisler bobs and weaves -- he's no Pauline theologian .