Featured Semi-Calvinism

Brother,

Please don’t take this wrong as I mean this to help by pointing out a defect and not as an insult.

Think about what you are telling me. You have read the “so called doctrines of grace” and have studied and read Calvinists trying to figure out where they get their beliefs for more than 10 years…but you have yet to find a reason to read the Canons of Dort!!!

Your investigation has led you to believe that Calvinists view salvation as God dragging the unwilling to salvation because some you have met told you so. Yet had you, in those 10 years of investigative study, ever ventured to read the Canons of Dort (where Calvinistic soteriology is expressed), or authors of the past like John Gill, John Knox, John Calvin, John Owen (a lot of John’s ), Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards...or newer ones like John MacArthur, Joel Beeke, David Wells, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, Albert Mohler, James Boyce, Michael Horton, Charles Hodge, Tim Keller, George Stroup, D.A. Carson….just to name a few, you would have found many Calvinists who reject that God saves men in that manner.

I have to ask, since you did not source the Canons of Dort, Calvinistic scholars of the past, or even contemporary Calvinistic theologians…exactly what sources did you rely upon in this 10 year journey to learn what Calvinists believed?

I do believe that you see Calvinism wrongly. But I am not claiming to know your beliefs. I am arguing against misrepresenting the views of other Christians. I’ve argued along the same lines in the past with a few who misrepresented non-Calvinistic positions to forward their position (again, a straw-man argument is just a lie created to puff up one’s own doctrine).

No, they actually derived their doctrines from Scripture…i.e., the Word of God…although you disagree with their interpretations, conclusions, and/or application. You are wrong to state that Calvinists get their beliefs from men instead of God just as they would be wrong to state the same of you. In fact, your error here is the EXACT error that is wrong within Calvinism today. And it is an error which I also believe to be a sin. Perhaps you believe what you are saying, and maybe it could be expected and overlooked a century ago. But with technology what it is, there is no excuse except negligence.

And of course, on this topic, it is more appropriate to talk about what Calvinists believe than discuss the validity of those beliefs because....well, that is the topic.

Insofar as what I believe, you have NO grounds to even think of opening your mouth (or moving your fingers in a tapping motion above your keyboard) because you have no inkling of my soteriological views or the reasons I hold them. For just like with Calvinism, you occasionally reference my belief…. but you have not taken the time to learn what I actually believe.

Woah…hold up….

NOT ACCORDING TO ME (yes….the caps mean shouting because it’s what I’ve been saying all along but apparently you haven’t heard ). Calvinism is not defined by me or my beliefs. Neither is Arminianism, Amyraldianism, Lutheranism...or Christianity in general.

And Calvinism is not defined by any of the diverse views within that soteriology. The reason you are wrong has NOTHING to do with what I believe. The reason you are wrong is that what you are calling Calvinism is opposed to Calvinistic soteriology as defined in the Canons of Dort.

The Canons of Dort (had you taken the time to read them) would have saved you about 9 years 11 months 3 weeks and 2 days of study to find out how Calvinists support their position biblically. The Articles of the Remonstrance, likewise, would help you understand how Arminians support their position biblically. All of these things are easily available to us so there is NO EXCUSE for one to argue in ignorance.

This is absolute nonsense. God has no need to interpret Scripture because He wrote it.

We are guided by the Holy Spirit who unveils what has been revealed (or reveals, I suppose, to us individually). Yet (unless you are willing to deny Scripture....which I suppose, remains on the table) we see as through a glass dimly, we know in part, and we understand in part. We struggle with what is inherently human and finite in our work to understand the Infinite (sometimes trying to understand what is not ours to know).

That is why Christians come to different conclusions (even the ones who devote their lives to study). That is why we…well, some of us….can look to the Charles Spurgeons and the George Whitefields right alongside the John Wesley’s and the Adam Clarkes and praise God for such workers in the field. We evaluate the teachings of others against Scripture. Granted, we may come up with different interpretations this side of glory. But we must first know what is being taught before we can evaluate it. Those 10 years you spent studying Calvinism (or, perhaps, studying anti-Calvinism) would have been better spent witnessing to others and weaving socks for veterans in the VA as you seem not to have even considered what constitutes Calvinistic soteriology.

 

Once again you refuse to give a cogent answer. Should I assume by your not answering that you cannot, in fact, find anything wrong with Romans 3:19. Romans 3:23, and Romans 6:23?

Fine. I have demonstrated that you agree with the first point of what you call "Calvinism" and now admit that it is not wrong, as you formerly claimed.

So, on to the next point:

Article 2: The Manifestation of God’s Love
But this is how God showed his love: he sent his only begotten Son into the world, so that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life (1 John 4:9; John 3:16).

So, what do you find wrong with 1 John 4:9 and John 3:16?

 

That seems to be true, as Jon pointed out above, in that MB has not read the Canons of Dort nor has he shown any willingness to read them to discover what "Calvinists" actually believe.

But I would be willing to wager, were I a wagering man, that neither has he read the Remonstrance, which is the foundation upon which Arminianism is laid.

As I have endeavored to post, for his edification, the Heads of Doctrine from the Canons of Dort I will also, for his edification, post the Articles of the Remonstrance so he can see the foundations of Arminianism.

Article 1
That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.

I don't know of any "Calvinist" who would disagree with the above. I certainly don't. I have some concerns regarding how to understand the phrase "and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end" which sounds much like "Lordship Salvation" to me, which is, in my opinion, the ultimate Arminianism.

So, moving on:

Article 2
That agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of 1 John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Again, I agree with most of that. However, also again, I am a little concerned with the phrase "he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins." It sounds almost as if all men have been redeemed and are forgiven. However, in the next phase it says "yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer" which seems to correct any confusion caused by the former phrasing.

So, that is two Articles of the Remonstrance that I can agree with.

Everybody with me so far? Anyone disagree?

 

And right here we see the problem illustrated. Article 1 does not say "all chose to sin Adam's sin." It says "As all men have sinned in Adam." There is a big difference between choosing to sin the sin of Adam and being born under the federal headship of Adam.

 

In Romans Paul tells us that as through Adam sin entered into the world, and death through sin, so death spread to all men because all sinned. We sinned not in the likeness of Adam (who is a type of Him who was to come), but it was because of the transgression of the one (Adam) that many died. The point is that in Scripture Paul points to Adam's sin as the reason that mankind is under condemnation of death. So I have no problem with believing that we are condemned in Adam as our federal head because this is exactly the rationale Paul presents in Romans 5 for our salvation in Christ.

As for the children who die in infancy, I am missing your reference here. I see where it is spoken of that believing parents have the assurance that their children who die in infancy are saved because of the parent's faith but I do not see where you find that infants who die in general are not. To infer more than is written doesn't seem right here because we could also infer (in error) that we are saved when we are saved as babies but lose that salvation if we survive infancy. The point is not directed at infants of unsaved parents, it is directed at infants of saved parents for a reason (as a clarification).

 

Have you ever considered that, even apart from our sins, Jesus was condemned and became a curse by hanging on a tree? Being human meant that He would die as a man, under the curse. And yes, this is a physical death but the federal headship of Adam implies a spiritual condition resulting in condemnation.

 

By the virtue that this is not the topic of the article. The assurance is to the believer, not the unbeliever. That does not mean that these infants are damned. It doesn't mean that they are not, either. It means that they were speaking to the believer, not the unbeliever. And it means that you are inferring what is not there. (For the record, their reasoning is not why I believe infants are not damned).

 

Yes, "sinned in Adam" = "under the federal headship of Adam."

 

Because He is a merciful and loving God?

 

Yes. We all sinned in Adam, but we did not sin the sin Adam sinned. Just as
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

If we died in Adam because we sin the same sin as Adam does that mean we are all made alive in Christ because we live the same sinless, perfect life as Christ?

How absurd!

Paul is talking about our inherent nature. The old man is dead in Adam and the new man is alive in Christ. And neither had anything to do with us doing something!

 

Have you lived a perfect, sinless life? Has anyone, other than Christ? We are not damned for someone else's sin. We sin because we are sinners. Born in sin. Psalm 51:5.

I am an American because I was born in America. Not the other way around.

 

We all have sinned in Adam (I don't know who these sinless people are to which you allude) and have come under the sentence of the curse and eternal death. And if you continue to read the article, the point is that God would not have been unjust to leave men under the condemnation of sin for “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”.

We are guilty because we are sinners and condemned by sin. Sins are manifestations of our sinfulness (our natures that we have by birth...."in Adam").

“Article 1: God’s Right to Condemn All People

Since all people have sinned in Adam and have come under the sentence of the curse and eternal death, God would have done no one an injustice if it had been his will to leave the entire human race in sin and under the curse, and to condemn them on account of their sin. As the apostle says: ‘The whole world is liable to the condemnation of God (Rom 3:19), ‘All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God’ (Rom 323), and ‘The wages of sin is death’ (Rom 6:23)”

Unless you are claiming that we exist in an immortal, perfect, and glorified state of being before we commit a sin by doing something foreign to our own nature and desires (at that time) and that sin then transforms us from having a righteousness of our own to being sinners…I really don’t see your point.

The whole point is that we are not as Adam was before he sinned, walking with God, with two choices before us. We are as Adam was after he made the choice to sin. And I am confident that if we were in his place we would have done the same. But if this answers your question, Calvinists do believe that men have fallen both in nature and in deed. We are not perfect beings until we commit that first sin. We sin because that is our inclination from birth.