Featured Discernment with christian books..

Well, you can think that if you wish, but since you don't my theology except from what we've read in opposition to one another, I'm not sure you can make that statement with any certainty of accuracy. So, let's see where I stand, shall we?

Take TULIP as a guide, not that it accurately depicts what Calvin. It can't, because Calvin didn't write it. His students of the next generation did, and they got a lot of what Calvin taught wrong. It provides a general outline at best.

T = Total depravity: Absolutely true. Sin is in every part of one's being, including the mind and will, so that a man cannot save himself, and salvation must be completely enabled by the Holy Spirit.

U = Unconditional election: Absolutely true. God chooses to save unconditionally, not based on merit, but on faith.

L = Limited atonement: Absolutely true, to the extent of understanding what "election" actually means. I do not believe it means some were chosen to be saved and others were not. I believe election of the saints refers to God saving all who believe in Christ per Romans 10:8-10. Election as defined in Romans 9-11 is not regarding the saints, but Israel. All limited atonement teaches is that the unbeliever will not be saved, even though Christ's sacrifice would be efficacious if they did believe.

I = Irresistible grace: Absolutely true. The effective confession of faith, totally enabled by God through the Holy Spirit's revelation of truth, results in God saving that person. In other words, grace is given upon the effective confession that God Himself enables, which is and of itself a form of grace. The misunderstanding is that grace is not just this "unmerited favor," but is it also the power to do that which we cannot otherwise accomplish on our own, and that is true of grace at the moment of salvation, and also in our service to God after our salvation.

P = Perseverance of the saints: Absolutely true. Though the truly saved one may appear to "fall away," it is not loss of salvation, but loss of fellowship, and he/she will return eventually. Those who never return, never made an effective confession as empowered by God, because they made a "confession" based on emotion or intellect, not the saving power of the Holy Spirit.

Now, if you want to pick at that and tell me I'm wrong, then you have a basis to do so, but I believe I have embraced most if not all of what Calvin taught, and probably the only argument I would have with him or any ultra-5-pointer is the understanding of what constitutes election. You can call me a "non-Cal" if you wish, and you'd be right. I don't follow any man, and would never use a man's name to describe my theology.

Yes, and I believe, if memory serves, that I admitted to that being a complete error on my part. If I didn't, I freely admit it now. So what? You never made an error? I would beg to differ if you claim you haven't.

And I stand by that statement. There is ample evidence that is the case, and I've displayed much of it in other threads, so claiming there is "no substance" is not accurate on your part.

 

Why, he was a good writer, and you are right, its JI packer!

 

Certainly he was a good writer. I have enjoyed a number of his books,especially Mere Christianity,The Screwtape Lettersand God in the Dock. Howver he was no Evangelical much less Reformed. I'd put him in the same category as Malcolm Muggeridge. There are far better biblically-based authors to consult and spend time reading.

 

You have not evidenced that so far.

Who would they be? What would they hold to in distinction with those who hold to TULIP?

Okay.You're a non-Cal --barely holding onto two points.

I haven't followed your other thread contributions that assiduously to discover any proof that Calvin's progeny by the time of Dort had misrepresented what Calvin taught. Please offer your substance here TND.

 

Really? And yet you have a four-month-old quote ready at the drop of a hat to bring back up in the discussion?



That's pretty strange, don't you think? I'm pretty sure you can find them. Let me know. :laugh:

 

Correction,you said on 10/22/2013 that "four of the five points are unbiblical."

I had to do a search. You have brought up John Calvin's name in 23 posts. In none of them have you demonstrated what I have been asking for time and time again. Either produce your documentation or admit that you really don't know what you're talking about.

 

In the context of the statement, you have to see that I was speaking of hyper-Calvinism. The entire quote should have been posted, and here it is:

Now, if you want to continue lifting quotes out of context and pretending they definitively refute something I or anyone else is currently saying, feel free. I'll set the record straight for the rest of the board every time.

As to Calvin's teachings, I seriously doubt anyone on this board, with a couple exceptions -- most notably Iconoclast, and probably Baptist Believer -- have actually read John Calvin. If they had, they wouldn't insist on reducing his great writings into the "TULIP" acronym, because John Calvin's theology was so much more rich and varied in scope than the rather narrow and completely misrepresented "Five Points."

Many point to The Institutes and claim that is where Calvinism is explained. That makes it obvious to me they haven't actually read the work. What is called "Calvinism" today does not find its touchstone in The Institutes. We should be reading Calvin instead of trading in overly simplified phrases that are becomingly increasingly embattled. Just think of "limited atonement" as an example. If anyone wants to dispute that, go ahead, but first you're going to have discard the idea that "TULIP" is an adequate description of Calvin’s theology, because it doesn't come close. I'd suggest most of you on this board need to dust off The Institutes to find out for yourself what Calvin actually wrote, and taught. One who has actually done this is Richard Muller, the Zondervan scholar of historical theology at Calvin Theological Seminary, who wrote:

Next, on the term “Calvinist” and its polemical use as a sign of the rift in evangelical consensus:

So you see, it isn't quite as easy as many on this board, and throughout Reformed theology, think it is to "pigeonhole" either John Calvin, or what passes for "Calvinism" today.

My best hope would be that we would stop reducing John Calvin to "Calvinism." It is unfair to the man's theology, and while I continue to disagree with him on some aspects of what passes for "Calvinism" today, as well as his support for infant baptism and other liturgical church practices, I give him a nod as one of the giants of Reformed theology. Oh, and while you're at it, get rid of that "covenantal theology" that Calvin gets credited with teaching. He did no such thing.

 

You said that four out of the five points were unbiblical. Own up to it. You still haven't cleared up your terminology about what an "ultra five pointer is."

Well,if you do a search of my past comments you will see that I am largely in agreement with the above with some qualifications. TULIP does not embrace the full-orbed theology of Calvinism. Yet within the more narrow confines of the subject of the Canons of Dort --those propositions were not out of harmony with what Calvin taught.

I just listened to his lecture last night. I am in agreement with him. He is a known quantity to me.

And you still don't get it. I have always insisted on the BB that Calvinism does not = everything that Calvin taught.

Good. He deserves as much.

But you still have not provided a scintilla of evidence to support your original claim --that Calvin's heirs at the Synod of Dort misrepresented Calvin's views.Calvinism was broader than merely the teachings of the man from Geneva. But you have not demonstrated any proof for your original claim.

As you quoted yourself:"I have not begun the Calvinistic misrepresentations." Please attempt to do so because without documentation you're sounding hollow. Richard Muller,W.Sanford Reid,Paul Helm and others very knowledgeable stand against the kind of stance you take. BTW,are you an R.T.Kendall fan?

 

I agree with you on lewis, but would say that while I tend to read baotist and or/reformed for theology, can and have use arminians writers to profit for items such as Apolegetics for example, like a Norman geisler/Josh mcDowell!!

As being a Dispy cal, would see reformed and those writting from say DTS good and profitable reading...

 

I think that his point that what we call calvinism today is not fully based upon John calvin and his theology though would be correct, as its more that he have a broad outline to that, while those immediantly after him enlarged it, and 'filled in the blanks" so to speak!
And the calvinism as Calvin expressed would fit more properily into say that helf by presby christians fully, not to reformed baptist, not Dispy cals...

 

How do you define Hyper cal, do you see it as one hiolding to a ll 5 points of Grace or?

 

To answer that question, I've started this thread in the proper forum, because we have seriously and irrevocably derailed Evangelist's thread, and I don't want to continue that here. By the way, Evangelist, I'm sorry about that. Please forgive me. Thanks.

 

Clearing away the clutter in the mind of TND.

 

The above was posted on Jan.12th with no response.

 

And just today I listened once again to Richard Muller's lecture on this subject (and another not pertaining to this discussion).
Dr. Muller is against the claims of many --even some scholars --who insist that Calvin's followers departed in significant ways from the Genevan Reformer.

Around 20:50 and following he says that Calvin's teachings on predestination,election and reprobation "cordinate quite precisely with the definitions of later Reformed writers."

About 21:50 or so Dr. Muller related that "there was clear continuity between Calvin's thought and the Canons of Dort."

Around the 39 minute mark he says there is clear continuity and theological commonground between a number of Confessions such as the 39 Articles,Scottish Confession,etc. and Calvin's thought. Most of those confessions are indebted to Calvin and his contemporaries.

Dr. Muller mentioned that Bucer and Melanchton's views on Communion were very much like Calvin's. He did not mention Luther.

Dr. Muller said there was breadth in the Reformed tradition -- it is not rigid.He said that Calvin had Catholicism of thought[not Roman Catholic]. Calvin was not an individualistic Reformer. He was a prominent or perhaps the primary one of his contemporaries. He was not the sole contributor,nor the creator of his belief system. He was a second generation codifier.

The notes I took of course are not exhaustive --but they are noteworthy. and they run counter to TND's ideas. It wasn't possible for me to quote everything verbatim. But when I didn't quote --it was a fair representation.

So there is not a disconnect between Calvin's theology and that of the 3rd and 4th generation who followed in the train of Calvin and his contemporaries. Dr. Muller had distain for those who,in his view "wrongly" skewed things.

 

really, the only main discussion point that I am aware of between what calvin wrote and held wih what those after him codified concerned unlimited/limited atonement , as have read where some have sen Calvin supporting both sides of that issue!

 

The authors of the Canons of Dort did not write TULIP. You have some messed up historical perspective. They didn't spend six months on a one page acrostic!

And "his students of the next generation" (55 years would not really be the next generation) did not,as you charge --get "a lot of what Calvin taught wrong."

That is certainly untrue based on the entirety of your posts. A more truthful statement from your keystrokes would be :"I distain much of what Calvin taught."

And the above was a rejoinder to me when I said that you "had intimated that Calvin's progeny at Dort had misrepresented what he taught."

Yet flying in the face of your claim that you agree with the findings of Dr. Richard A. Muller :"Calvin and his fellow Reformers held to doctrines that stand in clear continuity with the Canons of Dort." (Transcribed from RAM's lecture "Was Calvin A Calvinist?")

 

calvin sure generates a wide variety of opinions here, as some see him almost like another Apostle in his theology, others like me see him as being a gifted teacher/theologian, but not inspired, nor infallible, while others as a heretic!

 

The above extract from Spurgeon needs to be brought to the attention of a number of BB'ers.