What Side Of The Fence Are You?

:laugh::laugh: That was fun!

You are correct. But I do agree with Christ 100%. That is why I can call myself a Christian.

If you don't agree with Calvin 100%, you shouldn't call yourself a Calvinist.

 

Amy, it's interesting that the Calvinists seem to reject several teachings of Calvin.

So that leads me to wonder: what is a Calvinist and what beliefs are necessary for one to be called a Calvinist?

I bet if I started a thread on that, there would 40 pages and little or no agreement.
:smilewinkgrin:

 

Marcia, what many 'calvinists' have tried to point out (and it seems to fall on deaf ears) is that tradition and use of words have come to label those who hold a system of theology "calvinist" and that while John Calvin may agree with the five points, that which is called Calvinism did not have its orgiin in his teaching.

The term calvinist and calvinsim is simply a useful (or not so useful) term to refer to one's belief about certain doctrines.

 

Even John Calvin changed a number of his viewpoints, expressed in the original Institutes, his first publication, early in his life. Compare the Institutes with his commentary on Romans.

Calvin's primary doctrine was the absolute sovereignty of God. The five points were a response to Arminianism, and not written by John Calvin.

Still, I do not hesitate to call myself a Calvinist, anymore than I would hesitate to call myself a Baptist. Baptists vary greatly in doctrine, but that doesn't cause me pause to the label.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Monergist in regards to God's Work(ing) of Salvation

Synergist in regards to man's repentance, which is a pre-requisite to the Salvation which only God can work. Can't be any plainer than Jesus said it. Fail to repent (achieve Godly sorrow in regards to sin) and you perish. Makes Grace very resistible.

 

Yes, I know that, so how can anyone say others are Arminians if they disagree with some things Calvin said since some Calvinists disagree with Calvin as well?

I would say not so useful judging from what I see on the BB. I would like so-called Calvinists to stop trying to pin people down on "Calvinism" if Calvinism as such doesn't really exist as a coherent system.

 

Jim, as I have pointed out before, Calvin wrote his commentary on the book of Romans in 1539. The first edition of his Institutes was in 1536. There is not much of a time-lapse between the two works.

What differences do you see between the former and the latter? Of course, most of us use his 1559 version of the Institutes.

 

Well stated. Can I change my vote to both?:thumbs:

 

I don't believe in the fence, so I can't be on either side of it.

 

What a flawed poll :laugh:

Why not start a poll "when did you stop beating your kids, yesterday or last week"?

The TRUE answer to your poll is not even an option. Salvation is of the Lord, yet He requires man's faith, regardless of whether you believe it is a gift or not, WE have faith making the requirements for salvation synergistic.

 

My vote is not one of the options...like I said, flawed poll.

At least mine where you used your "new math" (which clearly did not support your assertation, hence I cannot be the "loser") I gave complete options, not just the ones I want to read.

What are you even asking in your poll What "doctrine" are you talking about?

 

I can’t believe so many voted for “monergism”?!?!

Here is a more extensive definition that I found..........

monergism–nounTheology.
the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.Compare synergism

In other words, God goes against our own will, to save us.

Why didn’t he simply go against Eve’s will, and keep them from partaking of that tree of knowledge of good and evil.

 

I too see not enough clarity in the descriptions to make a choice for neither seem to fully describe what I see the scriptures saying.
It seems to be more of "if you are not like me, then the only alternative is this" kind of thing.

In the above there is no mention of anyone having heard the word or not. (Rom 10:14-17)

No one who believes what the Bible says about the depravity of man would say that man has the natural ability in and of himself to repent and believe the Gospel without the word of God and the conviction of the Holy Spirit.
Therefore the heart of the matter is if man has the free will to respond to the Word of God and the Holy Spirit without being the subject of Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace.

The Bible does require man to do something, and that something is to believe; however the Bible goes on to say belief is not a work and those who do believe are saved by the gift of the Faith of Christ, not their personal faith in Christ.

This seems to place salvation on an individual in spite of the individuals choice in the matter of whether to believe or not.
If man does not have this choice, then why does the Bible even give it to him?

Certainly along with all creation by God came the laws of nature and science which control the actions of the whole creation.
But does God control every action within the bounds of these laws?
God created gravity and therefore water always runs down-hill; but does God control the ever changing path of the stream?

I view it much the same as raising children. We create bounds within which they can live and these bounds are expanded as they age.
The ultimate goal is a lifetime son or daughter who will return unrequired love, can manage their own affairs and bring forth the pleasure of grandchildren, not robots.

 

I voted Synergism,

I believe the Holy Spirit uses the Word of God to draw men to the point where they must make a free-will decision of whether or not to accept the offer of grace offered by the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Isn't this statement self-contradictory?

"Monergism" is a term used by people who are monergists to describe themselves. "Synergism" is a term used by monergists to describe people who disagree with them. I have never met a self-described "synergist".

And, you guessed it, I did not vote in the poll.