Calvinists

I think you are pickin a fight by posting on this subject in this forum. If no one else with fight with ya, I will just for the fun of it.

I am NOT a 5 point calvinist.

By their technical definitions, I am a 4 pointer.

 

You are dispensational? With a name like Scofield, I would have thought you a died-in-the-wool Covenantalist. Just kidding.

I am also a dispensationalist. I must warn you than there are some who disguise themselves as dispies, but in fact embrace larkinism/hageeism, a horrible cult.

 

As I understand the Calvinist's definition of the points: 0 point. With qualifiers placed on T and P: 2 point.
If Total depravity means than man, of himself, merits nothing from a Holy God and there is nothing that he can do by himself to improve his standing with God, that is biblical. But, if it carried to the extreme that man is not responsible and does not have any capability or obligation to seek God: No.
If Perseverance of the saints means that they will "Make it" because of who they are: No. If that means that God is faithful, that He does the keeping and will see us to the end; Yes.
U.L.I.? Unbiblical. I don't go to that debate forum and won't debate it here. Click on "Calvinism Refuted" at biblebelievers.net, read, "Chosen But Free" by Norman Geisler or the Bible passages that are given by those who refutes Calvinism. All of the reasons for my rejecting Calvinism are contained in these sources. We could debate until blue in the face and what would it gain? What would it change?
Oh, and I will add that Calvinist's are brothers/sisters, they are saved. God loves them and so do I. I am not one of these radicals you reject people for their views on this and, certainly, do not think God rejects them because of a differing view on this matter. I pray that that is the view of us on the Calvinist side. I will not seek to stir up strife among brethren here. I, and all of us must stand before the Judgement Seat of Christ. If I am found wrong on that day, I am wrong and will accept that humbly.

 

Yall hash it out, but why do some call themselves calvinists but refuse to be associated with John Calvin?

 

When a baptist says "reformed" he is refering to being a calvinist. When our presbyterian friends say Reformed, they are taking about the whole nine yards, covenant theology and a swearing to their Bible . . . eh confession the Westminster Confession of Faith. Hence Scofield's confusion of Pastor Bob saying he is dispensational and reformed. I like to say, reformed with a little r. Anyway, those anoying Presbos like to keep claiming we are not Reformed since they get to own and define the term.

I'm relate to the six point calvinists too, but my sixth point is that we should burn the heretics!!! (that's just a joke, nobody get your panties into a wad).

 

Thanks Scofield,
Yes, I am familiar with Dr. White and his work as well as Mr. Hunt (thebereancall.org) and, certainly, the White-Hunt (sometimes rather heated) debate, as well as what Dr. White has written.
Unbiblical was perhaps too strong a term to use and I apologize for that. Coming to the wrong conclusions on the Biblical text is preferred I suppose. I must come down in the Geisler-Hunt camp here. Now I certainly recognize that there is an elect and I feel Peter gives us the answer to the whole quandary: "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God."
The Book of Life was written long ago because God knew. Those in that book ARE, therefore the elect.
In short, the whosoever will are the elect and the elect are the whosoever will.

 

I am with you.

To paraphrase Spurgeon, the system commonly referred to as calvinism is nothing less than the biblical gospel...

 

Hi Scofield. That is a interesting statement. I generaly call anyone who is a 5 point Calvinist Reformed. On the other hand many Presbyterians disagree that Baptists can be called Reformed Baptists because of our disagreement with Presbyterian Covenant theology and Baptists are more restorationists than reformers.

There is such a diversity of theology among Calvinist Baptists. You have Baptists who are covenant in their theology like Fred Malone, Al Mohler and Dispensationalists like John MacAthur (Ok, he is baptistic!) and even a Calvinist/Charistmatic like Wayne Grudem.

 

Since I am a Bible Believing Christian, I do not subscribe to the goofy heresy of Calvinism.

No one in the Old Testament was born again but without being born again, folks in the Old Testament DID have free will.

Calvinism is rather pleasing to those who enjoy logic but its conclusions, though logical, are nonetheless unscriptural.

Reasoning can be logical and still arrive at the wrong conclusion.

1. Cats are monosyllables.

2. Cats love milk.

3. Therefore monosyllables love milk.

Logical but still, a wrong conclusion.

My brother and my brother in law are both preachers and both Calvinists.

Boy oh boy, have we had some interesting discussions at family reunions!

 

yep... 5 pointer here... Reformed Baptist to be exact....

 

Since this is just discussion and not debate (at least so far), sometimes you have to understand what people mean by each point.

If the standard for the five points is the Synod of Dort, then I am a 4 pointer. I do not believe in limited atonement the way they do.

I do believe in limited atonement. So in some cases I am a 5 pointer.

I would add at least two extra points, although Pete's extra point was right on the money.

1. Every thing that happens is the best possible situation to bring God glory.

You don't have to understand it, but the above statement is true.

2. If predestination is true, then so is double predestination.

Really, I don't care about this one. If it is true, fine. If it isn't, fine.

The Scriptures are very concerned about the saved and only really mentions the end for lost people. Whatever is true still requires us to focus on the saved.

 

rbrent,

You need to work on your logic a little:

This is essentially an ad hominem argument. Assuming that Calvinists are "goofy heretics". Illogical.


No one in the Old Testament was born again but without being born again, folks in the Old Testament DID have free will.

A simple assertion. No logical argument.


Calvinism is rather pleasing to those who enjoy logic but its conclusions, though logical, are nonetheless unscriptural.

An either-or fallacy. Something can be scriptural AND logical.


Reasoning can be logical and still arrive at the wrong conclusion.

1. Cats are monosyllables.

2. Cats love milk.

3. Therefore monosyllables love milk.

Logical but still, a wrong conclusion.


No, this is NOT logical. It is a false syllogism known as a part-to-whole fallacy.

Using your logic, it's no wonder you don't like Calvinism!