Featured Today's "Calvinism"

I enjoy reading John Calvin, and I do agree with much - but not all – of what he states. Since Calvinism is not a product of Calvin, but also a product of Beza, I have a question that seem to have plagued me throughout this forum. (Even if you hold to a pre-Beza “Calvinism,” the question is actually the same).

When, in time, did "Calvinism" actually reject traditional Calvinistic doctrine to become what many on this post has termed as “Calvinism” (that is, solely Calvinistic soteriology – the five points)?

In other words, a person can be termed a “Calvinist” but only accept the Beza’s doctrines of grace in regards to salvation and predestination– rejecting all the rest. Calvin, Beza and Knox are very clear about what they determined as Reformed belief or Calvinism – their definitions extended beyond soteriological views. Calvinism as used on this board doesn’t match with their definition. This doesn’t make sense to me, and I’m trying to understand exactly when this shift from Calvinism to Reformed Soteriology became officially the “Calvinism” (are is the term just used to counter reformed views derived from Calvinism, ie. Arminianism?).

 

You are absolutely correct that John Calvin didn't come up with what we define as Calvinism - much of his work was based on Zwingli, but "Calvinism" is probably better attributed to Beza.

If Calvinism is the response to the Remonstrants, what happened to what was termed “Calvinism” during the life of John Calvin and the early work of Beza (the “Calvinism” that John Calvin preferred to call “Reformed”) and upon which we have much of the Presbyterian Church and certainly the Westminster confession and beliefs? (There was a "Calvinism" before 1564 - much less 1618).

My question is that, since we regard Calvinism as the response to Arminius, then what happened to the entire system that was taught by Calvin and systemized by Beza - and is still represented in the Wesminster Confession?

 

That makes since in a way, but Baptist doctrine and the “free church” movements pre-date both Calvinism and Arminianism (Smyth quotes almost verbatim the Waterland Confession of 1580 in the Second London Confession).

From what I gather, calling one’s self a “Calvinist” depends on the company one keeps.

 

At one time, Calvinism and Reformed meant the same thing (Calvin preferred “Reformed” to “Calvinism”, for example). Is “Reformed theology” the entire theology of Calvinism and “Calvinism” taken today to refer to soteriology?

I know it may seem that I’m being picky or “trolling,” but I am not. Until recently I had only knew of one church in my area that taught “Calvinism,” and that was a Presbyterian church. I know from reading many authors that the debate is usually centered around salvation, but I didn’t realize that it was no longer held as a theological system and there is a difference between book and practice. I know many who would agree with the five points (or 4 of the 5), but object to being identified as "Calvinists" because of the church-state relationship and/or infant baptism and/or Calvinisitc covenant theology.

Apparently many here live where this is a prominent debate – I do not. Am I mistaking in thinking that “Calvinism” as a theological system still exists today (by that name)? Are “Reformed Baptists” merely Baptists who hold to Calvin’s soteriology but reject the implications regarding predestination that Beza found inevitable?

 

I wondered about DoG. I figured it was Doctrines of Grace, but didn’t make the connection as pertaining to the DoG apart from the entire system of Calvinism. – Thanks, this helps.

(I like “Low-Cal” – sounds like a diet or a rap group)

 

Reisinger makes some very good points regarding “Reformed” positions within the Baptists (I don't know about the "axe" he had to grind because I am not familiar enough with the Reformed Baptists or Reisinger). He is absolutely correct that the Reformers did not try to rebuild or remove the Catholic system, per se, but only reform the doctrine. Zwingli, Calvin, and Beza were all magisterial reformers.

While I know that the relationship between the radical reformation and English Baptists is debatable, I do see a correlation (particularly in view of Smyth’s writings – which utilizes Anabaptist articles of faith). My understanding is that Baptists owe their heritage to both the Radical Reformation and the Reformation (although I tend to view the ecclesiology more in light of the former). But looking at some posts on this forum, I was getting the impression that some held Reformed Baptists to be Presbyterians who reject infant baptism.

 

Yea, I know. I just don't know any other way of asking - not picking a fight (just trying to understand).

If I were picking a fight, I'd say Baptisterian .

 

I was just kidding…Devil made me do it (not outside of Divine Providence, of course) :smilewinkgrin:

My qualifier is that there are many posts here that present Calvinistic Covenant theology within a Baptist context. It was a Calvinistic form of Covenant theology that was used to justify infant Baptism (Synod of Dort – “the children of believers are holy not by nature, but by virtue of the covenant of grace in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended”; “predestination is the head of all doctrine” and “Godly parents have no reason to doubt the election and salvation of those, their children, whom it pleases God to call out of this life, in their infancy”).

Now, I know that many on this board who hold to Covenant theology and call themselves “Calvinists” without affirming infant baptism (and I’m not implying otherwise – this is just an example). But my question is, what exactly is the line between Reformed Baptist, a Baptist who holds to the DoG, a fully Calvinistic Baptist (if there can be such a thing) and traditional Calvinism? What part, if any, of traditional Baptist doctrine is lost in Reformed Baptist Churches?

I’m not questioning Covenant theology, or DoG, or anything of the sort. I just want to understand to what extent Calvinistic Baptist are Calvinists. Pretend like I have always attended a SBC denomination and have not conversed with many Reformed Baptists although I share many Reformed views.