Who Is A Moderate Calvinist?

Good post. I hope you understand my previous post. I was frustrated.

We might also ask if Joseph Arminius was an Arminian. Would he have endorsed "classic Arminianism" (or Wesleyan Arminianism, as well) ?

FWIW, I have read some of Calvin's writings, and do find myself agreeing with him much more than I do Reformed theology. I like his statement that "assurance is of the essence of faith." Would any modern Calvinist agree? His handling of James 2 is much different than modern Calvinism.

CYL,

FA

 

Nice. I agree.

FA

 

That is the question. IMO, it has to do with election, eternal security and the ordo salutis... and not with the TULIP perse. After all, Calvin was long dead and buried before it ever came around. It was really a response to the Five Remonstrances, and perhaps not the best characterization for Calvinism.

I agree that Geisler's ordo salutis is basically Arminian in nature (though it IS different). My reason for characterizing his position as "moderate Calvinist" is based on his holding to election and eternal security. No true Arminian comes close to Geisler's position on election and the sovereignty of God or regarding the security of the believer.

Have you read Geisler's book? If so then I imagine you'd see why Geisler reacted the way he did to White's analysis.

Yeah, Geisler is not an exegete, but neither is White. Both are theologians - expert in systematic theology. But I would not characterize Geisler as failing miserably at exegesis. He referred to the Greek more than White did in his book, right? I thought that Geisler was much more thorough in his arguments from scripture, whether or not he exegeted thoroughly. Where did White exegete in his book? I see it as the pot calling the kettle black. Neither exegeted much.

White needed to show Geisler more professional respect in how he reviewed Geisler's book. I hadn't read Geisler's book yet at the time, but I do have one of his 3 volumes (3rd one - on Sin and Salvation) and respected his theology and logic. White's attacks can best be characterized as name-calling, taking things out of context and straw-man building, IMO. He didn't specifically address Geisler's position in enough detail. (By detail, I mean details of Geisler's book.)

Show me where in Geisler's book that he misrepresented White. I could show you plenty in reverse. Anyway, White's attitude came across as arrogant and I thought very disrespectful of a person in Geisler's position. So it wasn't so much what White said, but how he said it.

BTW, I saw some flaws in Geisler's arguments when I read it, though I agreed with most of it. I'm a Molinist - he's not. Hence I can accommodate election more thoroughly than can he... IMO of course. I thought that at times Geisler said he wasn't this or that, then later seemed to argue from a position that he was. There were a few inconsistencies. His appendices are excellent, and thorough arguments.

I guess I had a bad experience with Dr. White on another website - his arrogance to me personally, when I was quite considerate, just turned me off to him. (Still bought his book though - gotta give me that. ) And if you look at the appendices in Geisler's book on The Potter's Freedom, you'll see how frustrated he was with the poor characterization of his position. He gave numerous examples. He tried to be respectful, but that was simply careless scholarship on White's behalf. The only way I can give White credit is to suspect that he assumed many of Geisler's arguments for various positions without actually reading them carefully enough. No way he could possibly have said what he did otherwise. (I read White's book first, then got Geisler's - the 2nd edition.) Read Geisler's appendix on White's analysis of his book. Oh, one example I remember is that White characterized Geisler as a Molinist ["middle knowledge" view of God's foreknowledge and omniscience]. Now if he so misunderstood Geisler's view of election, then could he have possibly have read his book very carefully?! That's a huge, basic flaw in understanding. The basis of Geisler's book was how election and free choice can work together - he spent a lot of time developing it. White missed the thesis of Geisler's book.

BTW, I am a Molinist.

Sorry. I don't mean to label all or even most Calvinists as such. There are certainly more close-minded theologies out there than Calvinism. But my experience on boards has been over the past 5 years that Reformed posters sometimes are very unbending and make assumptions. They see things often as black or white - no gray. Many do not. If I am not a 5-pt Calvinist then I'm Arminian.

Now many Cists know their theology better than most non-Cs, IMO. KJVOers are the most extreme I've seen in this respect - of black-white and closed-mindedness. No one comes close there. Anyway, before I even read the posts I anticipated that some Calvinist would ridicule the expression "moderate Calvinist," and also that some Cist would say that Geisler was Arminian. And even though I realized that there was certainly some basis for saying his position isn't really Reformed, I was ready to react. Sorry.

Yeah. True. But how can someone who holds to election and eternal security be classified as Arminian?! That's why I prefer "moderate Calvinist" over "moderate Arminian." Which one of the two would prompt more misunderstandings? I guess I am speaking for the benefit of the average church-goer who has vague understandings about Cism or Aism.

Uh, you were charged as promoting antinomianism? ... That doesn't make sense. It has been Calvinists who've charged me with that label, due to my position on repentance. Well, I guess I see the thinking there. If someone says that we are justified by faith alone... Luther changed his position some in response to similar labels by the RCC.

Sorry, sloppy I know. I am simply referring to the Reformed view of the incapability and inability of unsaved people to even desire anything spiritual. My point is that Geisler aligns with Aism there as opposed to Cism. Geisler sees man has having a free will and ability to choose regarding his salvation before he is regenerated. Cims says that he is dead spiritually and cannot choose for good. I think he characterizes it as "thorough depravity" as opposed to "total depravity."

Perhaps not, I don't imagine he would classify himself as such. But if he is not, then who is? He is a Supralapsarianist. Infralapsarianism is much more common among Calvinists. Hyper-C is a doctrine that emphasizes divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility. Their logical order has God planning the fall and electing certain people for wickedness and to be lost for eternity. IOW, when we say that God not only anticipated the fall (of course He knew) but maintains that God predestined sin, I got a problem with that. I recognize that many do not see all supralapsarianists as hyper-Calvinists, but it seems as good a distinction as any to me. Cists can't seem to begin to agree on who are Hyper-Cs.

May I ask how you distinguish hyper-Calvinism? Thx. Anyway, that's why I consider Sproul a hyper-Calvinist. Do you know of any theologians who classify themselves as hyperC? (Curious)

Thx,

FA

 

I imagine that my view of what characterizes "moderate Calvinism" got lost in my lengthy posts. Let me regurgitate:

1. Holds to election
2. Holds to the security of the believer
3. Has an ordo salutis with faith preceding regeneration (logically)

What think ye of these distinctives?

I also think that the 1st two above are generally perceived as the most significant distinctives of Reformed theology in the church. Hence, "moderate Calvinism" makes some sense, though IMO the ordo salutis is required to really be Reformed. I do have a more reformed position on election than Geisler, and also on the need for God to do a work in someone's heart in order for him to respond in faith... I just don't call it regeneration. And the ordo salutis is regarding the logical order, not the chronological order. So I think that "moderate Calvinist" fits me. People understand my position better with that label. But actually, just referring to my theology as Baptist seems to work the best.

FA

 

Who is an Unreformed Paulician?

Whilst were are stereotyping people with poorly defined theological labels, let us consider: Unreformed Paulician. Or: those who follow the 13-NT letters of the Apostle Paul, aka: Pauline Epistles.

Curiously, Paul tells us not to follow anyone save the Lord Jesus Christ. The real question is: What is a real Christian? or: Who are the real followers of Jesus?

Apparently Chauvin and Arminius have confused a lot of theologians, etal--and continue to do so. Was true doctrine lost until the 16th century? Maybe Joseph Smith Jr.(LDS founder) got it right in the 19th century--he still has millions of followers. How could this be? Jesus said He would never leave us nor forsake us.

God is not the author of confusion. Let God be found true, and every man a liar.:BangHead:

Selah,

Bro. James

 

RE: Who is a "moderate" Calvinist?

I, for one, who consider myself a "moderate Calvinist". I believe in the Perserverance of the Saints", Total Depravity, etc, but my problem is with Limited Atonement. I believe that the Spirit strives with all men, but only those who heed to God's call, are the "Elect". I have heard that you can be saved anytime you want to, but it takes God's call on your life, before you can be saved. Man can not go to God, unless He works with you. I don't think most will consider anyone a moderate Calvinist, though. I see it a little like the Calvinists, a little like the Arminians. But I am not totally either way.

 

drfuss: I have asked this question before on other threads and never got a good answer. So here it is again.

Why would someone who does not believe in Calvinism (unconditional election and irresistible grace) want to consider himself any type of Calvinist?

 

RE: Who is a "moderate" Calvinist?

That is a good question, that could have "many" answers. First of all, I consider myself a "Child of the King" first, an "Old Regular Baptist" second. The first is by GRACE, the second by choice, and where I think God wants me. I don't believe in all of the "beliefs" that the ORBs have, but they are as close to the bible as any I have ever been to. So, I consider myself a Baptist, because I believe in most of their doctrine. I consider myself a "moderate" Calvinist because I believe "some" of his beliefs. This doesn't mean I consider myself a "moderate" baptist, though. There you go, clear as mud, ain't it??:laugh: :tonofbricks:

 

TC,

"This is a double post because I thought a time factor eclipsed it:

1. Would we then consider John Calvin a Calvinist?
2. Would he have endorsed what is considered classic Calvinism?
3. Or have a mess been made of his writings?
4. Who then is the real John Calvin in light of classic Calvinism?

By way of clarification: These questions are only to be considered from a historical stance. I am not talking about whether the five points of Calvinism are scriptural or not, even though it might lead there."

I must admittedly be careful in choosing my words here - I am no Calvin expert - and many on this board may have significantly more expertise than I.

I have read a good deal of Calvin and of Arminius. I was initially intrigued by R.T Kendall's book, "Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649", a title familiar no doubt to Calvinist "hardliners" like James White. In the end I was disappointed by the book. Kendall quoted Calvin meticulously in attempts to show he supported unlimited atonement. But I found his arguments strained, with many more "Calvin quotes" available to suggest otherwise. Paul Helm amply demomstrated this in his short response to Kendall's book. I found Curt Daniel and Brian Armstrong much more nuanced in their arguments, with Armstrong (Calvin and the Amyraut Heresy) making a convincing argument that Calvin's thinking was not the same as that of some of today's "Calvinists".

I think that Calvin would agree with all five points.

But I don't think he intended his thought to be weaved into a systematic theology to be quoted.

Predestination, for example, can be deduced by considering that the will of an absolute God must be fulfilled. As such, in a sense, one who dies lost does so according to God's will - for if God wanted him to be saved then God's will was violated. If Christ did die for everyone, including that individual who died lost, then how is Christ's sacrifice sufficient? And then was it not that man's will, and not God's, which triumphed in the end? Given these observations, can we not then conclude that Christ could not have died for everyone since not everyone is saved.

I think Calvin would agree that in a certain sense the atonement is limited since, in the end, not everyone is saved. But that does not mean that he would bring that observation "to the front", saying, a priori, that there are those whom Christ "hates" from birth.

That is the oversystematization thrust on Calvin.

The Bible has tension. Calvin's writings have tension.

My opinion...

 

Nobody here believes in "Calvinism", just as nobody believes in "Arminianism".

I think these are unfair descriptions, and sometimes offensive.

It just so happens that "Calvinists" here agree with Calvin on the way he laid out the Doctrine of Grace, but to say they believe in Calvinism would almost necessarily mean they follow everything Calvin.

And I think the same goes for Arminians.

I am with Brother Reed. We follow Christ, we obey Christ, we trust Christ, we lift Christ up.

In the end, theologies don't matter as much as who Christ is to the believer or the child of God.

Titles stay on earth.

 

Hear, Hear! Well said, FA. I especially agree with you in #40. And as far as White, I just find the name-calling and attitude to be a huge turn off. Even when he's correct, his tone is too often offensive and non respectful.

Note the quotes I gave in #8, which support what you've listed above.

 

drfuss,

Well, I can understand why the asking, but actually let me first comment that someone who holds to the Reformed ordo salutis, the Reformed view of total depravity, the reformed view of perseverance, and who does hold to election (convicted1 does) is certainly Reformed... perhaps just not your flavor. But hey, I'll take him on my team any day.

OK, the point has nothing at all to do with wanting to be labeled a certain manner, but with wanting to label yourself such that people understand your basic theological position... convenience. When someone is neither a classic Calvinist or a classic Arminian, then those who are tend to be confused. The labeling helps. And like I said in an earlier post, it's more for the benefit of those who are younger in the Lord.

Now I almost never refer to myself as moderate Calvinist. Sometimes I do when I find myself talking with someone who is Reformed, and I think it will stimulate some discussion. Hopefully, he will ask some questions instead of just making the assumptions he's likely to make if I simply say that I am not Reformed. The natural tendency when someone says that they are not Reformed to a Calvinist is for them to assume that you are Arminian (don't know why - it makes no sense to do so, but it virtually ALWAYS happens, to the frustration of many of us) - meaning that they assume that you do not hold to unconditional election or the security of the believer. But... I do.

I guess if my Reformed brothers would just quit making the assumption that to not be Calvinist is to be Arminian, and 90% of them do just that, c'mon now, let's be honest here... they do, then the rest of us would not need to resort to such measures IOT avoid improper labeling.

You see, though I do have much respect for Reformed theology, I also see many issues with it, as well. Hence, it would be more accurate for me to just refer to myself as Baptist. I have no desire to be labeled as Calvinist - in general. Now nearly everyone knows that the largest chunk of Baptists are not Reformed, and certainly not Arminian... that they hold to the security of the believer, etc... But when talking to Calvinists... well, they don't seem to understand still. So this little method helps clarify some. At least they will not assume that I do not believe in the perseverance of the saints or that I do not hold to election.

Thx,

FA

 

Humblesmith,

Thx, you seem to focus your view of moderate Calvinism around the will and election too. I added the distinctive of the security of the believer (in one of its many forms). Nice set of quotes there.

I had a personal very bad experience with him on another board about 3 or more years ago. I could not believe his arrogance. And the irony was that I actually debated with him well, IMO. It had to do with dispensationalism, where I saw some error on a thread regarding it. (It was being misrepresented.) Now dispensationalism is just no big deal to me. But I supported my position carefully, with quotes from dispensationalists such as Ryrie and Walvoord, yet he misrepresented me and my issue was just with his caustic manner. (It was a Reformed board, I usually had some nice discussions there.)

White should remember that professionally that Geisler has written many more well-respected works than has he, at this point. How many have written systematic theologies? Just having done so says something about how much he has thought through his theology. He's not just some pastor of a neighborhood church, or even a megachurch. He does not need to agree with him, or walk on eggs, but he does need to show respect. Professional courtesy should never be abandoned.

I think I'll add one more reason why Geisler should be categorized as moderate Calvinst. On page 20 of The Potter's Freedom, White says that Geisler only holds to 2 of White's 6 listed distinctives of the Reformed position. Geisler actually holds to 5 of the 6. That illustrates how carelessly White considered the book that he was reviewing (after all - The Potter's Freedom is a review of Geisler's book), and also gives good reason for referring to Geisler as a MC.

Thx,

FA

 

Just curious, does anyone know of someone who refers to himself as a hyper-Calvinist?

Oh, and would John Calvin, if alive today, classify himself as a moderate Calvinist?

Thx,

FA

 

drfuss: Thanks you all for the answers. I still think a Moderate Calvinists should call themselves OSAS Christians. It would be less confusing and separate OSAS Christians from something they don't believe..

 

Thx.

Perhaps that would be more clear... but you're ignoring an important distinction - holding to election. Most OSAS Christians do not. Moderate Calvinists do.

FA

 

Here's a few thoughts from John Calvin on assurance that I've compiled over the years. In particular, I appreciate what he had to say on faith and assurance:


For the Calvinist today, in general, there is no assurance of salvation - not really. Although he will strongly support the perseverance of the saints, if pressed he will admit that since his assurance of salvation is not based on the moment of his believing in Christ but in the resulting works which indicate a genuine new birth, and because he insists that all genuine Christians will persevere in the faith, he will say that we cannot really know FOR SURE until we stand before Him.

The Arminian also has no genuine assurance of salvation either, since it depends to one degree or another on his faithfulness in following or obeying Christ.

So it is interesting to see what John Calvin - the great systematic theologian of the reformation, whose hand God used mightily - had to say about it.

According to John Calvin, faith is the principle work of the Holy Spirit. He even want so far as to say, "unless we feel the Spirit dwelling in us we can have no hope of our future resurrection" (Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 3.2.39).

As a definition of faith he taught that faith is firm knowledge of God's grace toward us, revealed to our minds. He also taught regarding repentance that repentance not only follows faith, but is also born of faith. You going to tell me that the Synod of Dort would agree there?

Calvin referred to "saving knowledge" and faith as a sort of "superior" kind of knowledge. But it was based in the mind, not works. Reformed theology would not have agreed with that, in general, nor would Arminian theology, FWIW. They would quickly go to James 2 and talk about the kind of faith that works. Calvin didn't. I like Calvin's position on faith. I do not like classic Calvinism's position on it.

So just FYI, I would find more agreement with John Calvin than in modern day Calvinism. It is difficult for me to understand his translated works... And I thought that I need a lot of words IOT say what I want to say!

To Calvin, faith was passive, "For, in regard to justification, faith is merely passive, bringing nothing of ourselves to procur the favor of God, but receiving from Christ everything we want." (Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 3.11.7) It is common today to refer to such passive faith as "head knowledge" or mere "mental assent." IMO, faith is faith. Sometimes we make too much of it. Calvin knew nothing of "head knowledge" faith and "genuine" faith.

How about the following statement by Calvin regarding how faith and assurance go together and are God's gift to His elect:

I especially like what he said about the sealing of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13, 14)

Calvin also said something profound when asked where we get faith. He responded that Christ prayed to the Father and asked Him to give it to us. You can see from above that to Calvin, faith is related to the mind and is not an act of the will - it is passively received.

This is somewhat clear also from the following,

I like his statement about assurance above. Calvin did encourage believers to look within for good works, I'll agree, but not in order to gain assurance that they were born again - he emphasized looking to Christ for that - but IOT confirm that they are in Christ.

Calvin felt that when the Christian looked at himself for assurance that he would only have grounds for being anxious. (Can't find the quote, but I'm sure he said this.) I would heartily agree with that. I'm certainly not looking to myself to gain any assurance of salvation!

Here's another Calvin quote:

Here's another on the passiveness of faith:

To Calvin, "assurance of salvation is of the essense of faith." IOW, how do we know that we believe in Jesus Christ? The Holy Spirit gives us an assurance in our hearts, and it is based on the work of Christ - His shed blood.

Why do I mention all of this? Because along with John Calvin I am very concerned with re-defining faith so as to include works. I like how Calvin handled it. (Hey, it was either this stuff about Calvin's position on faith and assurance, or share some evidence that Calvin did not hold to limited atonement... but that would certainly send this thread down a worn and weary rabbit trail!)

The following quotes do not strictly fit the theme here of faith and assurance, but I find his view of the drawing work of the Spirit interesting:

Finally, it is interesting to consider to what extent Calvin aligns with modern Calvinism. There is much disagreement as to how much John Calvin would have agreed with the conclusions made at the Westminster Assembly (It met between 1643 & 1651). Interestingly, no adherents of Calvin's view of saving faith were invited to the Westminster Assembly, & Calvin died in 1564. And we do know that the "L" in the TULIP ("limited atonement") came about from a disciple of his, Beza.

The following quote relates to repentance and faith:

Thx,

FA

 

OK, it appears that no one knows of any Calvinist who refers to himself as a hyper-Calvinist. I've asked this question now twice. Very interesting. Does anyone know how many refer to themselves as "moderate Calvinists"? Charles Stanley refers to himself as a Calvinist, but IMO that must be modifed as "moderate" as he does not hold to the Reformed ordo salutis. I do not see how someone who holds to "free grace" can be classified as a classic Calvinist, FWIW. (Humblesmith had some nice quotes earlier.)

Thx,

FA

 

I agree on all points. White would be taken more seriously if he would tone down the attitude and deal with people he disagrees with with more professional respect.

As for Norman Geisler, he spent 25 years debating a very wide variety of people all over the world. He's taught at college and seminary level for 50 years, wriitten 60 books, including 3400 pages of his most advanced work after he was 65 years old. His contributions to Christian apologetics are inestimable. Regardless of what we think of his viewpoints, I think he's earned the right to be treated with scholarly respect. White has the right to disagree, but he doesn't show scholarly respect.