What is the purpose of Calvinism?

They are of great value because they keep us from long conversations about what we believe. When I say I am an inerrantist, that is a label that tells you about my bibliology. When I say I am a Trinitarian, that is a label that tells you about my theology. When I say I am a Christian, that is a label that tells you about my theology. When I say I am a dispensationalist, that is a label that tells you about my theology. My guess is that you probably don't mind theological labels as much as you say you do.

Then you are well on your way to becoming a Calvinist since most Calvinists know that what Calvin wrote is not God's word, and most Calvinists are not compelled to study Calvin.

This will set you up well to be a Calvinist, since Calvinism is about what Scripture teaches.

Because Calvinism is not really about what Calvin taught, but about what Scripture teaches. As you should know, the tenets of Calvinism predate Calvinism by many many centuries.

Not sure why that is interesting to you. If the Bible is our sole standard of faith and practice, then I think we will all be Calvinists. The problem is that people follow the teachings of men and as a result believe other things. Even the name Baptist is a label that is not found in the Bible. So if your argument is correct here, we could not even call ourselves Baptist. I think you have just exposed your own fallacy.

No. The labeling there was something entirely different than what we are talking about here. Studying the Scripture in its historical context as you say you like to do will help you understand that.

I am not sure why you can't understand that Calvinism is not about men, but about what the Scripture teaches.

 

The majority of church members don't want their church's split wide open. The majority of church members don't want to fight over an issue that to them is a mute point. They don't want a boxing ring set up in the tulips. They don't want a line drawn in the sand using the word grace.

 

Would you feel the same is some folks in your church were advocating modernism, Barthianism, Neoevangelicalism? These too are attempts at understanding the bible.

If we hadn't taken a strong stand in the early days of modernistic teachings, we might not have the stronger evangelical churches and church bodies we have to-day.

Cheers,

Jim

 

You really told me nothing about what you believe other than give yourself a label that may not relate to what you really believe.

Are you a 3 point, 4 point, 5 point, or 6 point Calvinists. In saying you are a dispensationalist which one of the three in the last 100 years do you subscribe to? Would your dispensational theology fit in well with the German rationalsim of the time when Darby promoted it? Do you subscribe to the way the dispensationalist C.H. McIntosh interprets scripture? Do you believe in the theology of what Larkin taught? Are you a progressive dispensationalist or do you like the dispensationalist theology of Ryrie better? Some dispensationalists do not believe that they should have a paid pastor and that it is against what scripture teaches. Some believe that leadership should be shared and that the leadership should be bivocational. Do you? When you say that you are an inerrantist which theology do you believe? Do you believe that every word fits together in such a way as the parts to a jet engine do or do you believe the message is without error? Would your inerrantist theology provide for differences in the numbers recorded in scripture such as number of people present or differences in calendars over the course of history? Your labels would do nothing to provide me with a clear cut answer about what you really believe. Whole books are written on these issues. If we were to focus on the truth of scripture then both of use would be encouraged and edified.

I went there and left years ago.

Interestingly I have a lot of Calvin's works and have read them. Reading Calvin does nothing to help me understand what John wrote about the word knowing in 1 Jn 5:13. It does nothing to help me understand what a perfect active subjunctive is.

Is it more temperament and focus or really theology. I have met few theologians who spent many hours studying their Bible and were focused on evangelism more than anything else. Label a person whatever you choose, but my Bible declares what a godly person looks like in Hebrews 13:7. One who makes disciples shows the fruit of their life not just in what they say. A fat preacher can stand and preach all the right things, talk about how we must be disciplined in our life, but his round belly clearly shows how he lives. That is the difference between godliness, reaching people, and intellectual theology without godly discipline.

Those kind of opinions have changed like a chameleon while scripture remains the same. If you have read about what Calvin believed you would easily see some parallels to communism too. His view of community very much parallels communism.

I do not happen to believe with the way so many Calvinists interpret Ephesians 1:4-5. They tend to lift it out of its context and form of a typical written letter in that day.

My point exactly. So why waste your time on Calvin and not spend it on Christ? People teach what they know. I do not see everything that Calvin believed can point back to scripture. Even Calvin himslef declared the shortcomings of his own theology. Apparently he realized the issues of his own theology but many Calvinists do not.

Who is John the Baptist? Was he not given that name by others? People labeled him as a way of identifying him. Isn't that what the world does? Wasn't it the world who labeled the followers of Christ as Christians? That could be good thing or a bad thing depending on who it is, they are looking at. Does the label that the world places on a person who claims to be a Christian clearly represent who you are? I would hope not and that you are above that image in terms of manipulating people to take their money. Does the label Baptist represent you? I would hope that you made it clear to people that you were not a part of the BFA and did not support that practice.

Does the label we give unite or divide? I would tend to believe that most labels given tend to divide the body. If I spent several hours interviewing you and then stood before your congregation with your theology written out how many people do you think would raise their hand saying that they agree with everything you believe. I seriously doubt you would have 100%. Not even all of the apostles agreed with one another.

When I talk to people I do not share what a Baptist believes or what church I attend but rather what scripture teaches.

I disagree. The labeling in 1 Cor. caused division much like we read in another post where it caused division in that church too.

If it is not about a man then why give a label with a man's name?

It is a theology written by man and not inspired by God. You may believe that Calvin was correct. In my studies of Calvin I see parts of his theology as being very parallel to the start of communism. It does not hold a candle to the word of God in terms of inspiration, power, and the ability to reach the heart.

In the end I believe that when one takes into account giftedness, and temperament it very much parallels the theological focus one has and how they see God. Each person has a different measure of faith and each has different giftedness. So in some way their theology and understanding is slightly different.

I see those who claim to be Calvinists much like those who talk about God creating evil while others state that God did not create evil and that it was Satan who was rebellious without ever mentioning the mindset and understanding of a person in that day with a Jewish Background. Should it surprise us when the people in the pew are in a fog.

 

If false teaching creeps into the "eldership" then the members need to intercept it and deal with it swiftly or else it will infect the body.

 

I’m sorry, but frankly what I’m seeing framed here seems to be a looking to justify the means for a takeover of a church. Point 1, you have said the church started out as Arminian (Only labeling myself as a Biblicist, not non-Calvinist or Arminian, I usually understand this definition to come from Calvinist upon anyone who opposes their views which they endeavor to monopolistically refer to as “THE Doctrines of Grace”.) so apparently a systematic Calvinist agenda has advanced on this church body.

Point 2, you seem blind to your own biased belief that you consider any anti-Calvinist view as false teaching. As per point 1 it is obvious from your own statement that what is creeping in this (started out Arminian church) is a Calvinist takeover to begin with, not the other way around. I see nothing but hypocrisy in your line of thought toward false teaching creeping in and the need to intercept it.

Point 3, it seems you are suggesting individual members (who are not generally as studied in these issues) which are becoming aware of the issues should be silenced by blindsiding them through use of elders (meaning Calvinist slanted elders) to deal with it swiftly, (meaning muzzle any anti-Calvinist proponents) before they are able to persuade the said members contrary to this Calvinistic agenda to take over said church.

All I a perceiving here is you attempting to justify this takeover and proposing a battle plan: A) stop discussion in the ranks, B) start by interrogating and hammering down opposing leadership, C) intercept and deal swiftly with all who oppose beginning with exterminating the opposing officers.

It is more than evident that the “infectors” are strategizing a method of warring geared toward a dictatorship takeover. This comes very close to my definition of a cultic takeover: authoritarian leadership with extremist ideology forcefully injecting themselves into a organized system.

 

No, I use a label that is commonly accepted and recognized.

I think this (as well as your other attempts) proves my point. The label immediately tells you something about what I believe. No label tells everything. They aren’t intended to.

As you should know, they are not intended to. They are short hand for basic beliefs and categories.

So? Perhaps it isn’t intended to. I find very little exegetical help in Calvin.

So? Is this because you don’t know enough people?

My Bible has a lot more information about a godly person than Hebrews 13:7.

It may, or may not. It might show he has a physical problem. It might show he has a particular body type.

No it’s not.

I haven’t read much of Calvin. I am a Calvinist because I see no other option in the Bible.

I happen to believe you are wrong.

I agree. I don’t waste my time on Calvin. I have no need to. The Bible teaches me what to believe. It happens to be the same thing that Calvin believed in the main about soteriology. The fact that Calvin also believed it is irrelevant.

I agree. So what? Calvinism is not about Calvin.

An individual who baptized. Being a Baptist doesn’t mean we are individuals who baptize.

Isn’t it obvious that they do both? Being a Baptist unites me with some and divides me from others.

I would prefer to call it the gospel, but many don’t understand what that means so it was given another name.

Not at all. Calvin had a lot of problems, but the soteriology generally labeled Calvinism is firmly grounded in the revelation of God.

You already said this. It is irrelevant so far as I can tell.

I agree as do all Calvinists I know. Do you know any who disagree?

 

...and the pride I have read from the calvinists on this thread has made me want to puke. How arrogant to think non-calvinists "ignore the teachings of Scripture". Talk about a statement that has more heat than light!

 

What is rather ignorance is the Biblical concept that no one was saved before they were saved, contrary to the ideal of "Sovereignty of God in salvation" as some define it to force calvinism to make sense.

Explain how anyone was holy and blameless before Him in love BEFORE they were saved?:laugh:

 

So which of the 3-6 pointers is correct? One of those may be correct while the others a heresy. Does that leave most Calvinists as heretics?

Those are excuses. That is typical of the tolerance society today so prevalent in the church today all in the name of grace which is not grace at all but a lack of love for the person and a refusal to help them to be disciplined. Ever see a fat person who does not have enough to eat?

Sometime meet some people from other countries who do not have enough to eat and ask them what they think. You will not get the same answer you suggest.

The number one college heavyweight wrestler in the nation last year was at one time a fat boy until a coach encouraged him to go out for wrestling. He is definitely not a fat boy today.

I don't just believe in God's sovereignty but believe the entire Bible. I am a Christian who believes that God in His sovereignty created man with a free will to make choices. If man has no choice and it is all God's choice then the evil that man does would be God's will and that man is predestined to do evil. What label would you give me?

Take a look at http://bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=29318

 

Could a young child?

 

There are none righteous, no not one.... We are born in sin and trespasses.....the penalty for sin is eternal damnation. Man did not earn this status, he was born into it.

If a child is taken into heaven it is by God's choice and not the child's will. We base the fact on a child entering God's presence on David's statement about his child. From there was have no certain scripture. We only have theological hope.

If man has any free will it is under God's Permissive Will, an aspect of God's absolute sovereignty. I am allowed to shake my fist at God in my anger. God will respond, but it may take a quiet moment for this to happen. It is like the atheist who shook his fist at God at a public meeting as he declared, "See. No God!" It was on his way home, alone and in the wooded area that a bolt of lightning struck him dead. Was that God? I don't know. I can only presume.

Cheers,

Jim