Equivocating Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism

Before there were Lutherians and Calvinists, there were was the Reformed views. It was the early way of showing a group of people who held to similar (though not specifically exact) views. Thus from Reformed theology you eventually had a divide of Lutherians (who are closer to Amyraldianism or 4 pointers) and Calvinists. Many of the early Reformers, who are noted as such (early Reformed Theologians), held to some differing views on Atonement (U and L), though all held to total depravity, scripture alone, God alone, Election, the call of God toward the sinner, justification by faith alone, perseverence/preservence of the Saints, as well as the rejection of the bodilly presense of Christ in the sacriments. Some definitions in the above might have some modification but for all intents and purposes they were much the same.

Thus Reformed Views, include Calvinism, but it was not historically understood as Calvinism, at least not initially. In fact, in is interesting to note that it was the Lutherians who first came up with the name Calvinists as a perjoritive. Another interesting factiod is that there is a theological view known as the Reformed Arminian view, which is much akin to Amyraldianism but with more emphasis on man's responsibility.

 

The Reformed view of theology = the Calvinist view. Calvinism could very well have been called Bucerism because Martin Bucer(1491-1551) held to the same things that his younger contemporary did.

There was no divide within the Reformed camp which eventually led to Lutheranism. You have it backwards. Lutheranism came before Calvinism and were essentially two different forms of Protestanism.

Reformed theology or the Reformed movement wasn't called Calvinism initially but the two terms are identifying the same entity.

Reformed Arminianism sounds oxymoronic.

 

About as oxymoronic as Calvinist Baptist.

 

You show your utter distain for Church History. Many,if not most Baptist of the 17th century were quite Calvinistic.

 

Yes, and whatever possessed me to think I could return to such error and arrogance having left it so many years ago. I let myself hope that to the IFB, "fundamental" had gone back to mean fundamentals of Scripture as it once was, not vain traditions of men. I noticed when reading IFB posts it is about MEN: Rice, Jones, Hyles, Ryrie, Scofield, Cloud ...or certain Bible colleges: BJU, BBC, Temple, Moody, etc. Even the "thus saith the Lord" is distorted and twisted by the annotations of man at the bottom of the page of their study Bibles. Well, just one visit by an IFB Pastor and deacon(?), jarred me back to reality! I was so much seeking a church home, but I now see God must lead on that. I sure erred taking the lead. :D

 

Ed, I am sinserely sorry to hear your story....but it was far better that it was revealed sooner than later.

I myself have had my difficulties finding adequate churches to become a part if....so I keep myself open & Ive even considered the possibilities of starting one on my own. However I am finding more & more that the True Church of Jesus Christ is much more about me going out to people vs me going to a "Sunday Go To Meetin Facility." Now, I am not saying thats wrong, but perhaps God is calling you to much much more than what you have been previously used to. I urge you to pray about this....take it to Him.

God Bless

 

Very true... reminds me of what I told a young man recently concerning his fiancee. She up and left him and he was so broken-hearted. As you said, it is better to happen now than after he married and had children!