Who Is A Moderate Calvinist?

I tell people I am a 94% Calvinist so as not to identify with the small percentage of man-made doctrine that most Calvinists tend to hammer into Biblical Calvinism.

:saint:

 

So you think that 6% of Calvinistic teaching is man-made ? What specifically ? And since "most Calvinists" teach those doctrines , why would you call yourself a Calvinist in the first place ?

 

There is a range of beliefs that fall under the term calvinist, so I let people tell me if they are calvinist or not, but I am more interested, for the purposes of discussion, in what tenants they actually hold.

Here are samples of the ranges of belief.

What is total depravity? Or is it total inability? You can find all kinds of divisions about this and whether a person refers to themself as a calvinist or not tells you nothing about their position on this.

What is limited atonement? Does a person have to hold to this in order to be a calvinist? There are lots of views here and, again, whether a person refers to themself as a calvinist or not tells you nothing about their view on this.

What is perseverance of the saints? Some people want to rename this one, though off the top of my head I can't remember what the alternate name is? Does holding to once-saved-always-saved qualify one as a calvinist or is that not even a calvinist position?

Then there are side issues (or in the view of some critical issues) like the relationship of faith to regeneration and the issue of monergism and synergism.

Oh, and don't forget this statement: Christ's death on the cross was sufficient for all men but efficient only for the elect. Does holding to this statement constitute true calvinism or is this statement a compromise of true calvinism?

People who hold identical views on all of these may or may not consider themselves to be calvinists. Is there a difference between being a calvinist and not being one. Yes. However, no one can say exactly what it is.

 

I would sympathize with the Amyraldian position, often labelled "4 point Calvinism".

"Purists" like James White would be quick to decry the very existence of such a position. However I think a good case can be made for it. I think that later "Calvinists" like Theodore Beza may have oversystematized Calvin a bit - working his "Institutes" into somewhat of a systematic theology text - something which I do not think Calvin intended it to be.

I think Calvin did teach "predestination" - but in a retrospective sense. If God is sovereign then all things must be in accordance with His will. But I don't think the Calvin considered predestination as a place to start theology.

Appreciation of tension is key. Different books of the Bible were written by different authors to meet different needs. To say that there is not tension is intellectually dishonest.

 

Limited atonement, IMO, is the most difficult aspect of Calvinism to defend. Amyraldianism seems to fit better with the Scripture than with strict Calvinism, but, of course, I reject Amyraldianism, too.

 

I'm not sure about the retrospective part, but I think you're right about Beza. From what I understand (and I'm open to correction here) Beza was the one who systematized it, and carried it a bit further than Calvin. For example, I've read several passages where Calvin clearly taught unlimited atonement. He seem to hold the other tenets of the 5 points, but he didn't appear to present it the way his followers have.

 

Although Unconditional Election is the heart of Calvinism, most people who reject it, reject it because they see the related Limited Atonement as unthinkable. I am sure that many would be willing to accept the T, the U, and the I if they did not seem to imply the L. No matter how successful a Calvinist may be in especially supporting the U, the Non-Calvinist will grit his teeth and push hard to resist, because the question is always in his mind: "Are you telling me that some of my family possibly cannot be saved?!" This is the foundational reason many people reject the five points. Of course, in reality, whether or not Calvinism is true, your family has just as much a "chance" to be saved as you did.

Which ever side of the argument you fall on, keep this in mind:

 

Ok, there is too much agreeing on this thread. Let's get some controversy going or shut this thing down!!!

 

I think Beza has been given too much credit for changing the "pure Calvinism of John Calvin" . It's overrated . Are you , and others suggesting that he single-handedly altered the course of Calvinism ?

 

Altered the course of Calvinism?????

As if it were such an entity that could be altered!

John Calvin was a brilliant thinker who wrote volumes - much of which was meant to address different points at different times. His writing is warm and pastoral and quite impassioned. I don't think he ever considered himself to be the founder of an "ism" at all.

It was Beza and others who systematized Calvin's thought to refute what they saw as heresy on the part of the followers of Jacob Harmensz, who has arguably himself been overly systematized posthumously.

 

So , Charles , would you regard Beza as a scholastic ?

 

Yes. In terms of the manner of application of Calvin I think that Beza and others like William Perkins could well be called "scholastics".

 

Would Perkins , Beza and others be on a much better plane than the works of the theologians of the Middle Ages ?

 

I think you're stretching that a bit. There are many on the board who don't hold to Calvin's principles. I used to be adamantly anti-Calvinist but now would describe myself as holding to both theologies. After all, both are supported by the Bible.

 

How can you honestly say ( just an expression ) that you" hold to both theologies" when they contradict the other in so many ways ?

 

Rippon is right - one cannot hold to both theologies. But I would suggest that the positions attributed to Calvin and "Arminius" are overdogmatized. It is possible to appreciate positive aspects in the theology of both Calvin and Arminius.

Calvin reacted against what he perceived to be errors. The followers of Arminius were reacting to what they felt to be errors on the part of Calvin's "successors" (remember Calvin died in 1564 and the whole Remonstrance thing occurred after 1600). Arminius was not necessarily completely "anti-Calvin" - but he was critical of some of Calvin's doctrine's - and even more critical of Calvin's followers who furthered what they saw as Calvin's ideas. As I said before I think Beza et al were more dogmatic than Calvin intended to be.

I think if (hypothetically) Arminius and Calvin could have been able to have a discussion they would be in agreement on certain points - but would certainly have a great deal of differences. However what we know today as "Calvinism" is specifically a reaction against the followers of Arminius. So the two "isms" today are in diametric opposition.

This is an interesting subject - I certainly do not claim to be an expert here. My personal bias is that the "Calvinism" of today is a bit restrictive - attempting to define God and His nature to a greater degree than is possible. Can one really say that God is incapable of accepting a sinner without him somehow being made righteous? I stop short of attributing incapability to God in any way.

My own opinion anyway...

 

No, I think that most Calvinists get a small percentage of what they believe to be Calvinism wrong, primarily by adding, however slight, to what God says. Actually, it's only a small percentage of the overall doctrine, I don't know what the actual number is. It isn't important enough to me to study it out. I use 6% because the number 6 reflects 'man', and is very close to what I perceive is the correct number.

I have no desire or time to debate Calvinism. I agree with all the points in general but would disagree with some of the finer points within the points, according to most Calvinists I know. For example, God has chosen to keep His act of salvation somewhat mysterious. The majority of Calvinists I know, not all, believe they have the whole process figured out in every detail. I don't think so. Many Calvinists I know admit this mystery, but many more choose to hammer in the little pieces that aren't clear, whenever or wherever it appears to them they may fit. For the most part, that varies from person to person.

Because I agree with 94%, or thereabouts, of what most Calvinist I know believe, and 100% of what many Calvinists I know believe, the Doctrine that can be supported Biblically. I am a Biblicist first, Calvinism means nothing to me outside of that. But I happen to agree with mainstream Calvinism, even though the majority of Calvinists I know have a tendency to add to what the Bible says in some of the minor points. I suspect most of that is passed down to them, doctrines of men, much like Legalism is passed down among many Baptists.

Not all, mind you. I have Calvinist friends with whom I agree perfectly. Many of them are Reformed theologians whereas I am Calvinistic in soteriology and leaky Dispensational in eschatology. Among those with whom I disagree about some of the finer points, more often than not their position is rooted in some form of hyper-Calvinism.

Another thing I find amusing among many of my Calvinists brethren is the idea that if you don't agree with them 100%, even little things you can't support with Scripture, you can't be a Calvinist, and therefore must be Arminian. Never mind that you are agreeing with almost everything they say and believe. I consider that rationale, and that person, dangerous.

:saint:

 

Well, I refer to myself at times as a moderate Calvinist. A friend of mine on another board referred to me as such when I said that I didn't know what I should be called. Now, I will say that to refer to Norm Geisler as a confused Arminian is... ridiculous. Sorry, but that just ignores his position completely. And to do so essentially takes ALL positions except classical, or hyper, Calvinism and refers to them as Arminian. I know you don't mean to be rude, but things are simply not that... simple. To refer to Geisler, or myself, as Arminian shows ignorance about Arminian soteriology. There ARE middle of the road positions to Arminianism and Calvinism - about 90% of Christianity fits there! Personally, I tend to see that as spiritual arrogance... Sorry, but I know that others in my position (all 90% of us) feel this way when such statements are made.

You see, James White did the same thing to Geisler in his book, A Potter's Freedom. He completely misunderstood Geisler's position. He simply assumed that he was Arminian, then shot that down. We need to know more than just what we believe, but what others believe as well. The idea that Geisler is Arminian is laughable. Either White let his emotions get to him, or he was ignorant of Arminianism, Geisler, or both. Problem was, he almost never got anything about Geisler's position right. I've read both books... ridiculous. A classic straw man attack by White. And Calvinists do it more than any others. Sorry, but I am actually quite serious here. And this issue is just one more example. (Now I will agree that on occasion Geisler mischaracterized Calvinism.) before I even read any of the posts here, I expected to see something like this here. For example, I am used to being referred to as an antinomianist or a semi-pelagianist - both incorrect, and I am frustrated, I admit, with correcting those who just don't check things out carefully before making such slams.

Now I realize that Geisler departs from 2 or 3 of the 5 points of the TULIP, but many Calvinists do not hold to limited atonement. He doesn't hold to the 5 remonstrances of Arminianism either, and his position on the TULIP certainly does not line up with the Arminian view of it either! So you can say that Geisler isn't Reformed, but you simply cannot refer to him as Arminian!

Personally, I have a lot of respect for Reformed theology, because I have studied it and appreciate the motivations I see there. I appreciate the desire to lift up God's sovereignty and grace. I just think that it doesn't quite work, logically or biblically. But the spiritual arrogance I see so often displayed by Calvinists... I do not appreciate that! Now I do appreciate the somewhat sensitive manner in which you posted... but "confused Arminian"... where'd you get that? Dr. White?


OK, I'll try to demonstrate why I think "confused Arminian" simply doesn't fit. What are some key distinctives of an Arminian?

1 - Eternal life is not secure - we can become "unsaved." Geisler adamently disagrees.

2 - Man has a free will. - Geisler fits there.

3 - God chooses the elect based on his foreknowledge - Geisler does not agree here. (And this is a key one - perhaps the most significant.)

4 - Man is thoroughly depraved, but not totally so - Geisler agrees.

(2/4)


OK, how about the Calvinist side?

1 - Eternal life is secure - we cannot become "lose" our salvation. - Geisler agrees adamently here.

2 - Man does not have a free will. - Geisler does not agree.

3 - God chooses (elects) whom will be saved - completely without regard for anything good or bad done by the elect. - Geisler agrees.

4 - Man is totally depraved, unable to respond to the gospel unless regenrated - Geisler disagrees.

(2/4)

I ignored limited atonement since many Calvinists don't hold to it.

Geisler is truly as close to Calvinism as Arminianism. Another issue would be the ordo salutis ("order of salvation). Geisler is much more Arminian there, clearly, though most Arminians say that man is able to respond to the gospel without enablement from God - Geisler does not agree there. I personally am more Reformed there than Geisler. (Actually, Joseph Arminius is much closer to Calvinism than those two disciples of his. I line up closer to both Calvin and Arminius than their modern day counterparts. )



OK, IMO what makes a "moderate Calvinist" is two things:

1 - Firm adherence to election and eternal security in some form.

2 - An ordo salutis which places faith before regeneration, and conditions it upon faith.


Geisler holds to both firmly. (IMO if someone departs from the Reformed view of total depravity, the rest must follow.) I imagine that point #2 above would cause you to say that Geisler is not Calvinist. I can appreciate that. There is certainly much to be said for that position. He does depart significantly from classic, modern Calvinism. But he departs much more from Arminianism. As I said before, he may not be a Calvinist, but he is definitely not Arminian either! That's the point.

However, since Geisler (and yours truly) hold to election and eternal security as well, "moderate Calvinism" is appropriate IMO. Why would I say this rather than some term which expresses something more middle-of-the-road? After all, Joseph Arminius was a Calvinist, and graduated from a Calvinist seminary!

Well, when most people think of Calvinism today, what two issues come to their minds? I submit that it is election and the perseverance of the saints (Most would refer to it as OSAS). Since Geisler holds to those two firmly, how can he not be a Calvinist? Those two are by far the most significant distinctions between Calvinism and Arminianism.

The way I look at it, I am closer to John Calvin regarding limited atonement and the essence of faith than modern Calvinism. I am somewhere between modern Calvinism and John Calvin. "Moderate Calvinism" would certainly fit for me. John Calvin would certainly view modern Calvinism as pretty extreme, I would think. (Geisler refers to some forms of modern Calvinism as "extreme Calvinism.")

I do not know why people do not like that label... after all, he did not refer to them as "HyperCalvinists." (IMO RC Sproul probably fits that part, though HyperCalvinism IMO indicates an adherance to Supralapsarianism.)

Anyway, just some thoughts. IMO the 2 points I listed above determine the minimal boundaries for Calvinism. If someone wants to throw in the ordo salutis, then they've just eliminated 90% of Christianity... perhaps not so reasonable. IMO the Reformed ordo salutis is the key to being referred to as a modern or classical Calvinist... just a regular ole "Calvinist" - not us moderate Calvinists.

FA