Calvinist or Arminian?

Given the welcome you received over in the other thread, you probably should dot every i and cross every t for a while.

Seriously, welcome. I think you'll find the board discussions lively but mainly civil. Occasionally one or two will get their noses out of whack, but it simply reflects how passionately they articulate their views.

 

I take your point. But why should we use the name of some man instead of solely make our appeal from the Word of God?

Calvin himself wasn't a Calvinist because the so called 'five-points' were put together long after his death. The most contentious, at least to my mind, is limited atonement but Calvin certainly did not believe in limited atonement.

 

I'm not going to get into whether Calvin changed his views on the extent of the atonement, except to say that it's not clear that he rejected definite atonement:

You get your side's supporters and I'll get mine.

But regarding the name Calvinism, I think it was not a name our Calvinist forebears thought up. It was given to us by those who oppose Calvinism.

Same as the name Baptist. It was actually used by our enemies as an epithet.

But it is a usable shorthand that, when used, gives one an idea what is meant by it.

 

Correction here.

The name Calvinism was given to a system developed by the Synod of Dort in the 17th century. It could have reasonably been called Augustinianism, since the views expressed by Calvinism had been around since Brother Augie expressed them.

Luther and Zwingli also held similar soteriology.

 

have you ever read this?

Calvin, ETERNAL PREDESTINATION OF GOD

I personally take the position that Christ died Efficaciously for the whole world but effectually only for the elect. Just wondered what your thoughts on that were.

 

I have known some Calvinist friends who hold your view. It is the view of Georgius, cited in your passage from Calvin's writing, which Calvin refutes.

However one views the issue, we can all stand with Calvin and his statement in that writing:

 

Gill didn't advocate that position, neither to the Primitive Baptists of today, although those charges are nothing new. How in the world do you know when you've found the elect? Well, when you find believers in Christ you've found elect people. How do they believe in Christ unless the gospel is preached to them? Gill, and the Primitive Baptists, advocate preaching the gospel indiscriminately, then when believers are found you further instruct them through more preaching.

Fuller didn't simply advocate preaching to all, he advocated adding things never a part of the Baptist church before then, changing the commonly held belief on atonement, and found middle ground between arminianism and calvinism.

 

Straight from the horse's mouth:

John Gill, The Doctrine of Predestination [emphasis added]

 

"I remember saying something on this subject on one occasion in a certain Ultra-Calvinistic place of worship. At that time I was preaching to children and was exhorting them to pray. I happened to say that long before any actual conversion I had prayed for common mercies, and that God had heard my prayers. This did not suit my good Brethren of the superfine school! And
afterwards they all came round me professedly to know what I meant, but really to cavil and carp according to their nature and practice.
“They compassed me about like bees. Yes, like bees they compassed me about!” After awhile, as I expected, they fell to their usual amusement of calling names. They began to say what rank Arminianism this was! And another expression they were pleased to honor me with, was the title of “Fullerist”—a title, by the way, so honorable that I could heartily have thanked them for appending it to what I had advanced!" --Charles Spurgeon, The Raven's Cry

 

What did you prove? Gill believes the gospel should be preached to all. He denies that there is a universal offer applied to all men. I agree with him, because he is right. Christ doesn't offer salvation to someone He didn't make provision for.

The problem is people have misunderstood Gill for ages. They misunderstand him because that view his theology through the corrupted lenses of post-Fuller Baptist theology. Prior to Fuller, the particular baptists believed that Christ died for the elect only. Fuller brought Calvins "sufficient for all, effecient for the elect" ideas to the baptists, and so when people read Gill or someone today deny that eternal salvation is offered to every single person on earth, they call them hyper-calvinists, anti-evangelistic, antinomian, etc. I fully believe the gospel should be preached to all men, I believe that ministers should go wherever the Spirit of God leads them, I believe that believers should be careful to maintain good works, etc.

 

Does anyone presume that God is 'trapped' in time? Is time, as we mortals experience it, before God that He acts within it as we, who are 'in time' do?

 

Well if we agree that time is simply a measure of change then I think we can both agree that God is not part of it. With that said, if God is not 'within' time then we must come to a better understanding of His Predestination as something 'other than' hard or soft determinism.