Who Is A Moderate Calvinist?

As Mr. Spurgeon was quoted as saying, "Preach like an Arminian, and pray like a Calvinist......" Then he supposedly once prayed, "Lord, save the elect and elect some more...."

On those who die without salvation do so in the will of God; I think we tend to think out of the box here. Most Calvinists of old would say that God did not "elect" anyone to damnation. The people chose that status in Adam, and God simply passed them by. Essentially it comes under the permissive will of God as opposed to the determinative will of God, both coming under God's sovereignty.

Sometimes we must stop short of logic since we do not possess infinite knowledge, and there are some things we must just accept. I can't for the life of me either know nor understand why God would choose me!

Cheers,

Jim

 

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"

drfuss: Norman Geisler (Moderate Calvinist) writes on page #65 on "4 Views on Eternal Security" the following: "The moderate Calvinist believes election is unconditional from the standpoint of the Giver, but conditional from the vantage point of the reciever."

Don't OSAS Christians also believe this? If not, what do OSAS Christians believe concerning unconditional and conditional election?

 

Well, I can't answer your question about all OSAS people. But I know that Geisler denies that election is "based on" foreknowledge, but is rather "according to" foreknowledge, as the Apostle Peter says. The distinction is that for the moderate Calvinist, God has no conditions on election....he does not choose based on foreknowledge. But as the quote you gave points out, it can be conditioned from our vantage point.......conditioned on receiving. Remember, God doesn't experience things the same way we do.

 

OSAS Election Beliefs

Quote:
Originally Posted by drfuss
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"

drfuss: Norman Geisler (Moderate Calvinist) writes on page #65 on "4 Views on Eternal Security" the following: "The moderate Calvinist believes election is unconditional from the standpoint of the Giver, but conditional from the vantage point of the reciever."

Don't OSAS Christians also believe this? If not, what do OSAS Christians believe concerning unconditional and conditional election?

drfuss: Thank you for responding. I think any election that is affected by anything we do or chose, is conditional election regardless of being "based on" and/or "according to" God's foreknowledge. If God's foreknowledge is involved in any way of what or who is elected, then it is not unconditional election. So I take it according to the above, Moderate Calvinists believe in conditional election.

As you can tell, I do not see any difference between "based on" and "according to" foreknowledge concerning election. Am I missing something?

Don't all OSAS Christians believe in conditional election? If not, what do OSAS Christians believe concerning election?

 

Hi. Sorry that I've been gone so long. Took a family trip.

You see, I am an unconditional election OSAS "moderate Calvinist, as is Geisler, though IMO any form of Calvinism really requires an ordo salutis which is Reformed, meaning regeneration logically before faith.

But you're right - many Baptists are OSAS and hold to election - in a conditional sense. But IMO that means that they probably hold to corporate election or in terms of "simple foreknowledge." IOW, God chose those whom He knew would trust in Him. IMO, that is not really election.

So when I referred to election on that post, I meant unconditional election. Actually, some even classic (or modern) Calvinists place some conditions on election.

Anyway, what I am trying to distinguish between are those who hold to eternal security (OSAS) in some form, but not to election, and those who hold to both. IMO, there is an argument for referring to those who hold to both as "moderate Calvinist," though I have no problem with Calvinists who insist that without the Reformed ordo salutis that you're not really Calvinist. The reason I see some value in people like myself, Norman Geisler, and Charles Stanley being referred to as "moderate Calvinist" (though Charles Stanley just calls himself a Calvinist, not moderate even, though he is a bit less reformed than I am) is because when people think about Calvinism, they think of two things historically:

1. Eternal security
2. election

Those are definitely the biggies, and the defining ones, in most Christians' minds. Also traditionally Reformed theologians refer to anyone not Reformed as Arminian - which makes no sense. So that helps clear things up for those of you who are neither classic Reformed or Arminian. The Arminian probably then realizes that I do not hold to irresistible grace or limited atonement. So it's just kinda handy. I personally recognize that I am not Reformed, as Calvinists like to gage it. But hey, I think it works to use "moderate Calvinist."

I am a 3-point Calvinist, though I handle the P differently. (IMO much stronger than classical Reformed soteriology) I could say 2.5, because I do not hold to total depravity in the same manner as Calvinists, though it certainly is not Arminian either. But obviously it could not be the "T" of Calvinism if I have a different ordo salutis.

Hey, there are many, many Christian soteriological positions other than Arminian and Calvinist. Actually, Aism and Cism are closer to one another than many other Christian soteriologies. Most Christians do not hold to any of the points of the TULIP, and they may or may not be Arminian. (Most who hold to eternal security do not do so in a Reformed manner.) But I do think that we need some way for distinguishing between classic Reformed and classic Arminian theologies - besides saying that you're a "4-pt Calvinist." It's funny that we never hear about an Arminian calling himself a "4-remonstrance Arminian." I think that the ordo salutis needs to be addressed first, for example.

Hope this helps.

Take care,

FA

 

I think that some of you moderate Calvinists may be interested in checking our William Lane Craig's "middle knowledge" philosophy. As I see it, election is not conditioned on our receiving Christ. That's why I said that I hold to a bit stronger position on election that Dr. Geisler. (Though I do agree that we should not assume that God acts in ignorance of what we are doing and will do.)

Craig is generally recognized as the foremost apologist today.

I was just reading this morning about Solomon and his dedicating the temple that had just been concluded (in Chronicles). There I read another example of God's knowledge. Throughout scripture there are examples of "if you had done this, then this would have happened, instead..." while holding to man's free will to choose to follow God or not. It demonstrates time and time again that God can and does work within the free will of man (no, of course He does not need to do so, but has chosen to do so) in accomplishing precisely what He desires. IOW, unconditional election and free will can co-exist, and do, IMO.

Take care,

FA

 

drfuss,

Actually, no. Most OSAS believers do have either a conditional election or non-election position, I agree. But I do not. It is unconditional election. There is such a creature. It is not contradictory. I believe that Dr. Geisler attempts to have just such a position, though he may be struggling some to accomplish just that, IMO, and in the view of some. But that is definitely his attempt, so I will allow him to state his own position, rather than brashly say "no, you're not!"

For example, IMO the classic "perseverance of the saints" kind of eternal security is not really eternal security... IMO. But I would not want to offend anyone by saying that. So I accept their position, though logically it doesn't work for me. (FYI - my position is that a Christian need only trust in Christ, and is guaranteed eternal life. I do not add on that he WILL persevere in good works, as I know he may not. Anyway, that's how my position is different, actually stronger, IMO.)

Take care,

FA

 

drfuss: FA, hope you had a nice family trip. I suppose our communication problem is the definition of unconditional election and conditional election.

FA: "So when I referred to election on that post, I meant unconditional election. Actually, some even classic (or modern) Calvinists place some conditions on election."

I know that some Classic Calvinists place some conditions on election such as praying for the salvation of loved ones. IMO, this makes it conditional election, but they still call it unconditional election so that grace can be considered irresistible grace. Below is my previous post about the definition of election.

drfuss: "Thank you for responding. I think any election that is affected by anything we do or chose, is conditional election regardless of being "based on" and/or "according to" God's foreknowledge. If God's foreknowledge is involved in any way of what or who is elected, then it is not unconditional election. So I take it according to the above, Moderate Calvinists believe in conditional election."

Thank you for explaining your position on this. We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

To me, an OSAS Christian is one who believes in eternal security, and does not believe in unconditional election (my definition) and irresistible Grace; and therefore is not a Calvinists. This dual definition of unconditional election is probably the reason most OSAS Christians don't bother including conditional election in describing their belief, which would explain the lack of response here from OSAS Christions.

 

The distinction between "based on" and "according to" comes out of 1 Peter 1:2, where Peter says "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God." If we make no distinction between 'according to' and 'based on' then we have God electing based on foreknowledge. Calvinists of all stripes would deny this. including moderate Calvinists. So how do we deal with the verse?

We would say that the answer lies in God's nature. He doesn't make sequential decisions like we do. In fact, he doesn't think sequentially at all, for He knows all things, and always has......God doesn't learn. So while God does foreknow, his decisions are not based on his foreknowledge......rather, they are based on God's own nature and essence. But since God does foreknow, the decisions are "according to" his foreknowledge. They're just not based on that foreknowledge. (BTW, all this applies to both the logical order of the decrees as well as the chronological order of the decrees)

Of course, this position dives into the nature of God, which always raises additional questions. Geisler does a decent job of answering them in his Systematic Theology, including responding to Middle Knowledge, and all the supra-, infra-, and sublapsarians.

The conditional vs unconditional part is answered through the nature of God. In brief, the answer lies deep in God's eternality and simplicity. Taking those in consideration, God can make a sure, determined election based on nothing but his own nature, and yet can choose to allow us to accept salvation conditioned on our free will. (see the quotes on the first page of this thread).

 

FA: I have no problem with this, in general. And that is precisely the position I hold. God elected me completely independent of anything about me. However, I also maintain that I freely chose to seek Him and eventually, as His Spirit drew me to Himself, came to trust in His Son. It need not be contradictory. What is needed is a more thorough, higher view of God's sovereignty and God's omniscience than we see embraced in Christianity in general.

Now I do not say that God uses His omniscience to choose those He will save, but that He uses it so make a "world" in which people are genuinely free and yet He predetermines His will. That's where "middle knowledge" comes to play. Otherwise, it seems like it must needs be contradictory.

Now I am not sure what you mean by the text I colored blue and italicized above, but I assume that you do not deny that God has unlimited knowledge and that He, as Humblesmith has said, cannot act independent of such knowledge. He is God. That is His nature. But He can choose to act independent of such knowledge, though just how He does that is a mystery to me.

But it then makes sense that He would say that He chose us before we did anything good or bad. The implication is that He did not choose us based on His foreknowledge of any good we would do, even that we would choose Him. (Though this latter is never stated anywhere specifically in scripture, and "trusting in God" is NOT an act. It is simply giving up trying to save ourselves and throwing ourselves into His arms. As Calvin said, it is passive in nature. As such, I do not know that it can be argued that God acted independent of His knowledge that we would trust in His Son. But that does not affect my position at all. I can take it either way. Just not sure how that should best be handled.) But we do need to be careful of trying to tie God's hands up.

Again, I do not think that your and my definition of unconditional election are much different. Perhaps you can point out what is so different there.

There are many varieties of those who believe in eternal security in one form or another. Those who hold to unconditional election may well refer to themselves as "moderate Calvinists." IMO, that is not invalid, though I do see the ordo salutis as fundamental to Reformed theology, which is why I would see historic Lutheranism as essentially Reformed. It clearly does not embrace limited atonement, and holfdds to single election, which IMO is difficult if one does not hold to the free will of people. But it's Reformed.

I explained in an earlier post why I feel that "moderate Calvinist" is reasonable for people such as myself and Dr. Geisler, so I won't repeat that here. Nice discussion.

Take care,

FA