Are you a Calvinist?

==Many modern Baptists who hold to Arminian positions deny that they are Arminians. They will say things like "I am not Arminian or Calvinistic, I am a Baptist". What they forget is that those labels identify certain theological belief systems. The simple fact is that everyone falls into one of the two camps. Even if they don't want to identify themselves as belonging to one of the two camps everyone is in one camp or another to one degree or another. I'm certain that if the theological system of some of those who voted "neither" was examined they would generally be labeled as Arminian. They may not agree with every point of Arminian soteriology but generally speaking they are Arminian.

 

The same is true for calvinists, is it not? All five points stand and fall together, as it is clearly systematic. You then have three and four pointers (the majority of those I know, btw) still calling themselves "calvinist" when they clearly are not.

 

Grace and Peace,

I am fine with being labeled Arminian. Stone away! :tonofbricks:

 

I hold to all five points of calvinism. Does that surprise any of you? :laugh:

I agree with Rippon that if you completely understand the depravity of man, the rest is easy. I'm sure that there are many who disagree with irrestible grace and or limited attonement. As far as the attonement, most all of us limit it. I prefer particular redemption. As far as irrestible grace, I hold that many resist God's calling, but they will not resist His effectual call ......... all that the Father gives me will come.

 

There are "four point Calvinists" and there are those who agree with three points who I would say lean Calvinistic. Again my point was not about someone agreeing with every point of Calvinistic or Arminian soteriology but rather the general leaning of a particular person. Keep in mind that much of what passes today as Arminianism is really Weslyanism. While Weslyanism is a form of Arminianism it is a very strict form, something of a holiness form. An classical/reformed Arminian may very well believe in Total Depravity (as Jacob Arminius did) however their understanding of election, the atonement, and perseverence is somewhat different from that of a Calvinist and even from a Wesleyan. The line between Calvinism and reformed/classical Arminianism is very thin.

"Even if they don't want to identify themselves as belonging to one of the two camps everyone is in one camp or another to one degree or another. I'm certain that if the theological system of some of those who voted "neither" was examined they would generally be labeled as Arminian. They may not agree with every point of Arminian soteriology but generally speaking they are Arminian."

 

Edited because poster changed denomination to baptist

 

If one is a 5 point Calvinist should they use the term "Reformed," such as "Reformed Baptist?" From an epistemlogical point of view the term "Reformed" could be used with "Baptist," but historically speaking the world "Reformed" includes theological beliefs that Baptists would deny such as infant baptism, [reformed] covenant theology, the The Three Forms of Unity, etc.

You thoughts?

Peace,

j

 

There are two kinds of people. Those who see all issues in tems of "either-or" and those who think along the lines of a continuum. "Either-orers" insist that a person MUST be either C or A. Continuum thinkers are not burdened by "either-or" thinking (or enlightened by it depending on your point of view). They freely acknowledge that there are mysteries about God which they cannot fathom and they are comfortable in not knowing the unknowable.

I am calvinistic in my theology. I do not count the points because each is dependent upon the definition one accepts. While some here are saying that the key to understanding and accepting calvinism is to understand the depravity of man, others who are strong calvinists insist that understanding and accepting calvinism is dependent upon understanding and accepting sovereign election. As long as I find calvinists who cannot agree about their own system, I am not subscribing.

 

Correct, it's not either or...there is also pelagian and amyraldian!

 

The depravity of man is not a point of dispute between Calvinist and Arminians. It is the 'starting point' of their theology...

Arminian Theology: God wants all people to be saved.

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. - 2 Pet. 3:9*

[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. - 1 Tim. 2:4

Starting point for Calvinist/Reformed theology: God is sovereign and decrees certain things.

…My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please. (11)… What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do. - Isa. 46:10-11

These two starting points establish divergent views of Man's participation in his own Salvation; which from the Arminian point-of-view is a certain synergistism and not passivism as Calvinism tends towards.

I believe it is important to recognize that both are borne from the same Reformed Tradition of Biblical Exegesis.

Peace and God Bless.

 

This is a good point, and I agree. Be prepared for the "you are ignorant about calvinism" label to be applied to you, though.

 

Grace and Peace donnA,

I am currently attending Grove Ave. Baptist Church thank you very much. I cannot change my original denomination when I joined this community. If someone can tell me how to change this I'd be very glad to do so.

Thanks and God Bless.

 

But is it fair for them to call themselves calvinists? That's my point. You can lean in one direction either way, but in order to be considered either a calvinist or arminian, you have to hold to the whole theology as systematic in nature. That is why you have modern day baptists who vote "neither", as that is what they are. They are not arminians, though. For this same reason, it's not accurate for a 3 or 4 pointer to classify themselves calvinist, as I'm sure many have done on this poll.

 

PM a moderator.

 

==No, it would not be fair or right to call a three pointer a Calvinist. However I would say that, generally, they would be classified as leaning in a Calvinistic direction. As far as I know there is no middle position between Arminianism and Calvinism. So even those who are not technically Calvinist or Arminian maybe labeled as such simply because they lean that way.

==I don't know that I agree with that since both Arminianism and Calvinism tend to be very large in scope. Go back to what I said about Wesleyans and classical/reformed Arminians as examples of how many different forms Arminianism can take. Calvinism is not that much different.

==I would say a four pointer is a Calvinist. Nine times out of ten they only disagree with particular atonement while they find themselves in agreement with the other points of Calvinistic soteriology. Three pointers are certainly not Arminian since I would imagine that their view of election is totally different from the general Arminian view.

I suppose all of this is determined by how broad one defines both Arminianism and Calvinism. Like I said I don't believe there is an "in between" position. So my view is that both views meet so that there are Arminians who seem close to some Calvinistic beliefs and there are Calvinists who seem close to some Arminian beliefs. As for a Baptist saying they are not Calvinist or Arminian but Baptist; as a historian I can't understand that statement. Why not? Because historically Baptists have been both Arminian and Calvinist throughout American and church history. Baptist describes a mode of baptism and church government not a specific soteriological position.

 

Grace and Peace Martin,

Nice post. If you know, could you give us an example of early Baptist's who hold to both soteriological positions?

Thanks and God Bless.
Bound

 

==I sure can but it will have to wait until this evening when I get back to my desk. However at that time I will be more than happy to give examples of Baptists who were Arminian and of Baptists who were Calvinistic. Great suggestion btw! :thumbs:

 

Now picture this, "As long as I find Baptists who cannot agree about their own system, I'm not subscribing."

:laugh:

 

One of the tenancts of being a Baptist is soul liberty which GUARANTEES disagreement. If I find a group of Baptists who agree about everything I'm staying away from them!!! :thumbs:

 

I know my name's not Martin, but this may get us started. The first breakdown of Baptists was the General Baptists and the Particular Baptists in England. The General Baptists believed in general atonement, and the Particular Baptists believed in limited atonement. Not sure if that meant that the Generals were exactly Arminian or not. But they had "Arminian tendencies."

The General Baptists pretty much died out, and nearly all the Baptist groups in the U.S. today, and in England (even the Arminian baptists) are descended from the Particular Baptists. I hope I got that right.

Here is Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Baptists

How all that relates to Regular Baptists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_Baptists

This is also interesting as it relates to American baptists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_Baptists

If there is some dispute about anything in those articles, here's the chance to contribute to Wikipedia, too!