Which Points of Calvinism Do You Believe?

Don't we just love to pigeonhole into false dichotomies??

I reject both Pelagianism and Semi-pelagianism as well, and entirely, at that, and I would believe Mr. Housman does as well, from what I know, but cannot speak to that point for him.

Allan and John of Japan have spoken well and succinctly about "Preservation of the saints" vis-a-vis` "Perseverance of the saints", and I generally agree with them, as well, although I have not attempted to parse every word in their posts.

With all respect, both Calvinism and Arminaianism as systems, reject grace, and are merely restating some theological canonized rhetoric, as opposed to Biblical analysis, and especially Biblical terminology.

To repeat a near 'quote' from another I heard, (and a self-proclaimed Calvinist, BTW), the late Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, "I have absolutely no doubt that when I get to heaven probably 90% of what I believe will be confirmed exactly as I believe it. I also have no doubt that on the remaining things, my thinking will change instantly!"

Agian, I agree, and we'll see what those things are where I change my thinking, at that time.

And I am not smiling when I say any of this, either, but am deadly serious.

Ed

 

Ed, when you glibly say that Calvinism blasphemes God you have gone over the brink . You don't know what you are talking about in other words .

BTW , many Calvinistic authors have emphasized the prerservation of the saints more than any other model .

I suppose many think that only Calvinists use extra-biblical terminology . But I , for one , think that most synergists use an abundance of terms and philosophies which run counter to the Word of God . When Calvinists use words not found in the Bible at least that are tring to state biblical models .

How in the world you can say that Calvinists reject grace is mystifying . The grace of our Lord is amazing , but your contention is appalling .

 

Faith

When we realize that this faith that is given to us by God is through is word, in which we first have to accept.

In which we either trust God and His word or not. You do have a choice and the same hope as I have you have.

When we make a claim that some just don't have a hope, that not even the power of His word can help them and then the cross has been emptied of its power

 

I agree that far more than any Calvinists use non-Biblical terminology, and usually either in order to support their own non-Biblical views, or they are "just repeatin' what they heard the rest of 'em say," one or the other. Neither shows any attempt to glean what Scripture teaches, but to take a 'shortcut' from studying God's Word, and rely on someone else. And that is to question the motives of none, BTW.

Martin correctly noted a subtle distinction between "eternal security" and "perseverance of the saints", in the opening post.

And again, as Allan, I believe, has stated, we really need more definition to these terms. This quote should suffice to show some of what I was saying about the fifth point, both of Dort and the 'remonstrants', commonly called the fifth point [P] of Calvinism and the fifth point of Arminianism, and although I almost never cite Wikipedia as an 'authority' or for a definition of anything, I will repeat part of Allan's quote from 'Wilki'.

As I have said more than once, on these pages, in the final analysis, it really makes no difference whether one "had it and lost it', or "never had it to begin with", as both systems attempt to guage someone's salvation by whether or not they measure up to some "undefined standard" of conduct. And that is where the two systems come together.

The model is flawed in the attempt to place the two systems on a 'straight line' pointing into two directions, traveling through space. A more accurate description and 'model', IMO, would be to place the two systems on a single latitude, one traveling East, and one traveling West from the Prime (Zero) Meridan. At the one hundred eightieth meridian, they will and do meet, for in the final analysis, again as I have now said several times, they are found to be the same.

BTW, Allan, I detest the implication of "fruit inspector", and have said that, in the past, as well. Fruit 'observer' is one thing, but we are not talking about the USDA.

Whether or not I am correct in my views is, as with all of us, debatable. But I deny your statement, and claim and believe that at least on this I do "know what I am talking about", whether or not I have arrived at the correct conclusions.

And 'glib' is probably not really applicable to me, for I speak poorly, BTW; "the over the brink" part is probably open for discussion, for you may well not be alone in this view. :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

If calvinists cannot even define their own theology, how is it "intellectually dishonest" for non cals? Who here that is a non cal doesn't accept the definitions of TULIP?

 

Your post is a good example of intellectual dishonesty. Disagreement over finer points (which, by the way, I don't really see happening here among Calvinists) is universal to all theological systems and YOU KNOW IT.

 

I KNOW what?!? There are no "finer points". There are points, all of which stand and fall together. If you don't see the disagreement here, you are blind to it. The topic of regeneration preceding faith is a huge one alone where I see disagreement amongst the cal's. Do not call me intellecutally dishonest for pointing this simple fact out.

 

I will disagree with the Wikipedia article on this point: OSAS does not necessarily feature antinomianism or encourage fruitless faith. That's just some folks interpretation of what it means. The problem with OSAS is the idea of "getting" saved. "Once" you are saved, you have the "ticket", you're in, no matter what. It makes it look like a human achievement, or some sort of "deal" with God. I say a prayer, you save me, that's it.

The bible does not speak of "getting" saved. It speaks of "being" saved. "Get" and "be" do not mean the same thing. Look it up.

The forgotten doctrine in the fundy/evang churches is the doctrine of CONVERSION. A man can change himself, morally speaking. But man can not change spiritually unles God does the changing. And if God does the changing, the man is saved.

 

The disagreement I assume you refer to is over the means and timing of regeneration - some holding that God can regenerate without the word, and whether regeneration chronologically before faith or simultaneously.

Looks like finer points to me.

I tell you what, you find me a Calvinist that believes that faith preceeds regeneration, logcially or chronologically, and then we'll have a MAJOR disagreement.

How about my fellow Calvinists? Are there any Calvinists that believe that faith preceeds regeneration?

 

If you want to classify whether a "corpse" can come to God on their own, or whether the "corpse" has to be regenerated first as "finer points"...hey, all the power to ya!

The fact is there are five points. Disagreement over the meanings of these does NOT make one "intellectually dishonest".

 

I believe that faith is given by God, and regeneration occurs at the same time... how could you determine a sequence? One can not be regenerated without faith.

 

Well we more or less agree on the third sentence I have quoted from you. The usual sense of 'epistrephO' is mostly in the passive sense, as regards salvation and service, witness Peter's admonition from the Lord "And when you are converted", or "be turned", another phrase used more than once, in the N.T. I am not aware of any Scriptures that use the sense of 'convert one's self, as to salvation, anyway. But Peter was already saved, when Jesus spoke to his being "converted". I would tend to say that the "forgotten doctrine" is that of 'discipling' and discipleship, again something that is only possible for one who is already saved.

Ed


P.S. As you said, look it up.

 

I'm basically undecided on time sequence. For a while I favored non-means regeneration but my bible studies are leading the other way now. Simultaneous, instantaneous, faith and regeneration makes a lot of sense as opposed to breaking them out into a sequence. I still think there's a logical sequence. I can fathom regeneration without faith, but I can't see faith without regeneration.

 

I do. I am a five point Calvinist who believes that God is sovereign in salvation electing individuals from before the foundation of the world because they are totally unable; that Christ died to save, not just provide salvation (and that his death is sufficient for all sins for all time), that God effectually calls people to saving response of faith, and that faith brings life, and that all true believers will ultimately persevere in their faith and not finally fall away.

I believe faith precedes regeneration because regeneration is life, and the Bible says that faith and repentance bring life. I believe the elect are sovereignly enabled to beleive through no act of their own.

For most, this is not the issue. People who believe as I do do not believe that God can regenerate the word. Nor is the issue one of chronology. The issue is causation ... does faith bring life as some passages seem to clearly indicate (John 20:31; John 1:12-13; Acts 11:17-18; etc.) Hodge said there are two sense of regeneration ... a broad and a narrow sense. Those who disagree with me on this are still Calvinists and we agree about the sovereignty and unilateral and effectual work of God in salvation. We disagree about a finer point of causation.
Having said all that, JD, webdog is one of several who often misrepresent Calvinism. It is unfortunate that it continues and with such rancor. We should be able to do better.

Tom's early assertion that one either believes all five points or is not a calvinist is wrong,. A Calvinist is someone who believes God is sovereign in salvation (without changing the definition of sovereign). All five points are closely connected but they do not stand or fall as a whole. They are exegetically derived, not logically derived.

 

As I said in the middle of my previous post, I think the issue is a logical sequence or causation. They are simultaneous chronologically.

 

FTR.

While 108 votes, or so, have been cast, the poll tracker, located beneath the poll, shows that actually as of now, 27 people have voted, not 108.

I did not vote, either, for a shortage of real definitions.

I just ran my trap a bit.

As usual! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

The smear campaign continues...

Pastor Larry, I misrepresent nothing. You spread nothing but malicious false statements. Please grow up.

If you believe that, you have just misrepresented your own position. Please learn what YOUR OWN position believes. Tom is dead on.

 

Different Calvinists have different opinions on this question, so there is nothing you could call a Calvinist position on this question. Therefore, there is no Calvinist position to represent.

 

I thought there were 5 points; you've got 6. Anyway, some of those I don't understand enough to say I agree with them or not.