Do you have a problem with Calvinism?

No.

I believe it. Some in my church do, some reject it.

If they do, I haven't been invited.

Is that on topic????

 

Most of the churches I pastored knew more about what they weren't than what they were. Many took the good parts of Calvinism, and just ignored the hard parts. They knew they were not Arminian because former pastors told them they weren't.

Many good people were schooled in the standard proof texts and so long as you preached favourably about those verses all was well.

It stands to show that we, as ministers, ought to put more theology into our preaching. The offer of the cross should be in every service, but we should also be teaching how we got to the cross and what it means to our lives now.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I had never heard of Calvinism except on this board. I keep meaning to get over to that forum to find out what it is...but haven't yet.

[ November 08, 2002, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: WisdomSeeker ]

 

Excellent and timely advise Brother Jim, I will use it in my ministry.
Murph

 

We are members of a reformed church and hold to the calvinistic views.

[ November 08, 2002, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Molly ]

 

I have no problem with it. Most churches have both in their fellowship. But sadly 80% of Baptist church members today would have no idea what they are if you asked them. Our churches are dumbing down.

 

Ouch....but,true.

 

It's even worse than that. How many people find out you're a 5-point Calvinist and automatically label you a "hyper-Calvinist"? It seems to be automatically assumed that "hyper" means firm, earnest, or militant.

(Kinda makes you wonder what a "Calvinist" is, if the boring run-of-the-mill 5-point kind is already hyper.)

 

I am a closet calvinist in my church, where most are arminian though I think there is one other closet calvinist and we are feeling each other out. Some of the men are doing bible studies that are leading them in that direction. while I consider myself calvinist I am not sure or completly convinced and don't like how calvinist intrepet some versions. I stick more to the Lutheran style calvinism where elements of predestination and freewill and held more in a mysterious tension. that is my copout.

 

I don't have a problem with it--but 99.99999% of the time I ain't gonna focus my church's attention on it--folks can preach Calvin's TULIP so many times to their folks its just pitiful. Sorta like all the "Health and Wealth" boys preaching what they do--if I hear about dollars mysterily appearing in my wallet Sunday after Sunday after Sunday--before long I'm gonna tire of it.

Here's what I do--when I preach--in my message and passage--if the T comes up--we preach it! In the next Sermon--if the P comes up--we preach it! But no, I don't agree with every little "jot and tittle" that Calvin wrote--I know he's what is called a "little bit less than infallable and inspired!" Whip a dead mule with TULIP--and he'll just lay there and let you whip him!! Whip a live mule with TULIP and after a few licks he'll move to a point on the earth where you can't whip him anymore! Get my drift??

Your friend,
Blackbird

 

Obviously, leaving Arminianism recently, I still
have problems with Calvinism. 8o)

* I have a real hard time with infants going to
hell.
* What is a hyper Calvinist, if there are Calvin-
ists who excede the five points?
* Do other Calvinists accept that there may be
4- and 3-point Calvinists?
* Is there any such thing as a 2-point Calvin-
ist?
* How do Calvinists consider those who do not
fit in either the Calvinist or the Arminian cate-
gory?
* Do Calvinists believe Arminians are not true
believers?
* Are the Tulip points Calvin's own writings or a
later theologian's summation?
* Were Arminius' 5 points really his answer to
Calvin or another theologian's summation of his
beliefs?

Thank you.

 

I think a lot of the people in my church have some views of each, but for the most part are arminian. Seems most peoples biggest problem is that only are called to salvation. But we also have a lot of calvinists too. After much study, and a couple of classes with my sunday school teacher(in our discipleship Su. night class he was teaching),and several long conversations, I think I lean a lot more toward calvinisim now then before.
If theolgians and many years of studying the issue have not found scripturlly one that can not be refuted, then I won't either.

 

Yes, I believe calvinism is wrong. I don't know if it is a regional thing or not, but I do not know of any calvinistic baptist churches in Houston. I'm not saying they do not exist, just that I do not know any of them. BTW, I was born in Houston and have lived hear for over 40 years.

I'm not saying that everything about calvinism is wrong, just that I do not think that, as a whole, it represents a true picture of Scripture.

 

Terry,

Thank you for that information. Are they all free will Baptists in Houston, or do they adhere to the old foreknowledge theory which seems to go along with dispensationalism.

I am not being clever about this, just curious.

Thanks,

Jim

 

Abiyah:

* What is a hyper Calvinist, if there are Calvin-
ists who excede the five points?

_____________________________________________

Essentially, the difference is in the order of the decrees of God:

sublapsarian (the general Baptist viewpoint

1. The decree to create
2. The decree to permit the fall
3. The decree to provide a salvation in Christ, sufficient for the needs of all
4. The decree to secure the salvation of some.election

Supralapsarianism (hyper-calvinism)would have the decrees change places and have the decree to provide salvation for some come prior to the decree to permit the fall.

Even Calvin adjusted his earlier theology....maybe it is true that we mellow with age.

Cheers,

Jim

[ November 09, 2002, 02:53 AM: Message edited by: Jim1999 ]

 

Jim,

Although some may call supralapsarianism hypercalvinism, I don't think that is the technically correct definition.

Here is an article that explains hypercalvinism.

And here is a def of hypercalvinism from that article:

1. [Hyper-Calvinism] is a system of theology framed to exalt the honour and glory of God and does so by acutely minimizing the moral and spiritual responsibility of sinners . . . It emphasizes irresistible grace to such an extent that there appears to be no real need to evangelize; furthermore, Christ may be offered only to the elect. . . .

2. It is that school of supralapsarian 'five-point' Calvinism [n.b.—a school of supralapsarianism, not supralapsarianism in general] which so stresses the sovereignty of God by over-emphasizing the secret over the revealed will of God and eternity over time, that it minimizes the responsibility of sinners, notably with respect to the denial of the use of the word "offer" in relation to the preaching of the gospel; thus it undermines the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly in the Lord Jesus with the assurance that Christ actually died for them; and it encourages introspection in the search to know whether or not one is elect. [Peter Toon, "Hyper-Calvinism," New Dictionary of Theology (Leicester: IVP, 1988), 324.]


All supra's are not hypercalvinists, but all hypercalvinists are supra's.

 

Russell55:

Thank you for that post. As with any system of theology, there are variances within. I don't disagree with your quote from Tyndale's Dictionary, but keep in mind, I was giving a simple answer to a specic question.

The difference is in the order of the decrees, and that does not change. That is standard theology. Right and left of centre must be based on a standard. IN this case, we take Calvin's thinking in later years as the standard from which we determine the proper understanding of Calvinism. Then the variances.

Onece more, thank you for the quote.

Cheers,

Jim