Who Is A Moderate Calvinist?

If this is not the best thread ever on Calvinism on this board it is at least the best in the last three years. All participating parties to the discussiojn on this thread are to be commended for content and courtesy.:godisgood:

 

I agree that he is open to critique, but I do not consider what White did as "critique," as it was not done in a professional manner. I respect Dr. White as an apologist as well, though not as a debater - I don't like his approach there. (I have read various debates in which he was involved, including one with Dr. Wilkin. I didn't see any exegesis there. I know, it is difficult to use exegesis in debates.)

I also have an issue with how White critiqued Geisler's book as he was so inaccurate. That is a big no-no when reviewing a book, as it is so unfair to the author. You say that the author is saying this or that, and he is not. Then you logically show how what you say he teaches, which he does not teach, is not accurate or biblical. Others read your critique, having never read the author's book, and form an inaccurate opinion on the work. The one thing you simply cannot do is get the author's points wrong. GET THEM RIGHT FIRST... then write your critique. Edited-added: See Humblesmith's post #60 below on this.

Could you give me some links to some article that displays White's exegetical skills? Thx. (Curious) My issue with White is really his arrogance... and how he reviewed Geisler's book. Just not convinced about White's exegetical skills yet, but I'm open to reason.

Geisler is a systematic theologian. What we are dealing with in his book is systematic theology. Treat him with professional respect.

I usually refer to myself as a TUP. I handle the security of the believer differently than the Reformed approach, and hence I like to refer to it as the "preservation of the saints."

Granted... as he doesn't refer to himself as such, and we should respect that. But just what DOES classify someone as a hyper-C? Just wondering. I guess we could safely classify Sproul as a hard-line Calvinist then. We do need something to distinguish the wide range of Calvinists, and if we're not using hyper-C as a label... after all, who is more extreme than Sproul? I'm sure there are many, but... just who?

FA

 

Thx, will check that site out as well. I have read some articles on hyper-C, but they do not seem to agree. Hyper-C is just a little more to the right from my position...

Edited-Added: Just reviewed that website - interesting stuff. I've bookmarked it - very good apologetical stuff there. I particularly liked his handling of the KJVO movement. But I have to say that I did not see what I call "exegesis" there - at first. His exegesis section was more apologetical and theological in nature, because that's his thing. I didn't see anything about Greek signposts, antecedents, etc., which I see, for example, in Zane Hodges' stuff, or at Bible.org. I didn't even see much analysis of the paragraph structure - at first. Look in Geisler's appendix 3 - you'll see some minimal reference to Greek in his analysis there. But I agree - Geisler is not an exegetist either.

Anyway, I think this is enough of comparing the two - they're both godly men whom God is and will continue to use, I'm sure. Perhaps there are some of Geisler's points which White addressed which you'd like to discuss (or someone else might like to do so). I think the focus should be not on the legitimacy of Geisler's arguments though, so much as evidence of whether or not we should consider him Reformed at all. Like I said earlier, I consider the ordo salutis a critical neccesity for being classified as such... but I use that expression at times anyway to describe myself since I think it works better than other options.

Edited-again: OK, found a section there where Dr. White did display some exegetical skills. But it was mostly posted not by Dr. White, but Alan Kurschner. But White did post some exegesis. You're right. His exegetical skills are definitely superior to Geisler's. And I read his analysis of John 15. While I did not agree with his analysis that those who are burned are those who appear to be saved, yet are not really. (I expected that though.) But he did a very nice job there. I do like this website - thx for the link. One thing he said which was very intriguing though, re. infant baptism: "Primarily, however, this is not a message for the baptized infant, or for the backslidden." He was referring to those branches thrown into the fire.

Thx,

FA

 

TCGreek,

Thx for the link to that hyper-C website. The following was interesting:

Hyper-Calvinism, simply stated, is a doctrine that emphasizes divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility. (FA: I believe I said something very close to that earlier.) To call it "hyper-Calvinism" is something of a misnomer. It is actually a rejection of historic Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism entails a denial of what is taught in both Scripture and the major Calvinistic creeds, substituting instead an imbalanced and unbiblical notion of divine sovereignty.
​

God's sovereignty can get out of balance, and when it does, that's what we should call "hyper-C." SUpralapsarianism is certainly an example of such imbalance. Later they had:

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​

So he says that hyper-C is realized when evangelism diminishes and in fact, often the gospel is presented only to the elect. (How do you do that?!)

The following was probably the best:

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.]
​

Excellent. OK, so I'll not refer to Sproul as a hyper-C anymore, but as a "hard-line" Calvinist. Point made.

FA

 

Isn't this exegesis argument sort of like "how high is up?" I mean, how much explaining do you have to do to "do exegesis?" How much parsing of verb tenses do you have to do to qualify? We may be able to say one person does more than another, or another does it poorly or better, but I see it as a matter of degrees, rather than a 'this person exegetes and that one does not' sort of thing.

I think there is a tendency to say that those we disagree with don't do exegesis well, and those we do agree with are brilliant.

 

I always thought that a "hyper calvinist" was one who held that God proactively elects the lost to hell as well as the saved to heaven. A. W. Pink taught this, as have others. (a supralapsarian, as opposed to an infralapsarian, I think it is.) I always refered to hyper calvinists as double predestinarians. But I'm open to correction.

 

That's essentially my position, but I guess historically, it's a bit more than that.

Hey, we need to define it such that I am not one, right?

FA

 

That is deeply disturbing to someone who has set out on a quest to plumb the depths of scripture. Why would God give doctrine for His Church that is ambigious? I am not trying to hijack this thread, but if the Bible is not clear on such a momentous issue, than how can we expect it to be clear on any issue?

Would God hide the truth from someone who is sincerely seeking? Is it possible to ever come to an understanding on the issue of Calvinism, and then stand on it dogmatically, as God's truth?

 

Christianyouth,

Remember that God expects us to live by faith. There are those in Christian theology and apologetics who would tell us that if we simply look hard enough will will find that everything lines up 100%. That simply is not the case. Besides - if we believe God because we have proved Him - then where does faith come in? Thomas said he wouldn't believe Jesus arose until he physically touched Him. I think that for us to expect that kind of proof is presumptious. God gave us His word as He saw fit - and it is enough.

 

drfuss: Now I am confused concerning election. I believe all Christians hold to election. The Calvinists believe in unconditional election; the Non-Calvinist believe in conditional election. If OSAS Christians do not hold to conditional election (God's foreknowledge), what do they believe in?

In what way do Moderate Calvinists differ from OSAS Christians concerning conditional election?

 

Thanks TC.

 

So which parts of the Bible do you ignore? What's generally done in practice is to stretch the interpretation of scripture to support your theology. The "whosoever" in John 3:16 means just that.

Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

This verse also supports man's free will to accept or reject the Savior.

Hbr 6:4 For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Hbr 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
Hbr 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.

Falling from grace.

On the other hand, we have:

Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

I have a problem with trying to explain away either of these beliefs. I believe that we must repent of our sins, accept Christ as our Lord and Savior, and be born again to be saved. All of these requirements can be supported Biblically. Those who are truely born again turn away from their sins and if they fall back into them (as they will) they will repent because Christ and not the world is their master. As far as whether some are predestined to be saved and some are not I don't find that to be that relevant. That's God's choice. I do not believe in limited atonement.

 

Baptistbeliever,

Some "Calvinists" will say that if a person dies lost then it must have been God's will that he was not saved - since if God did want him to be saved, and he was in fact not saved, then God's will would have been violated.

I do not defend this interpretation since I find it too restrictive of God. But there are many who do believe this, thinking that to believe otherwise would mean believing in a God whose will is not absolute.

 

In Post #57,Faith Alone writes concerning the difference between an OSAS Christian and a Moderate Calvinist:
"Perhaps that would be more clear... but you're ignoring an important distinction - holding to election. Most OSAS Christians do not. Moderate Calvinists do.

FA"

Does anyone know of any Christians that do not hold to some type of election (unconditional or conditional)?