Will The Actual Calvinists Here Please Stand Up?
- Thread starter bluejean_bible
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I believe Calvinism conforms to what the bible states.
Institutes of the Christian Religion has over 1000 pages to it. I highly doubt those that are opposed to it have read and understood all of it.
Most people hate Calvinism because it goes against their imagination and will. I think the whole bible goes against our imagination and will. So its not surprising that people have such a reaction to the term "Calvinist".
I hesitate to call myself Calvinist because it is only by my own understanding of what I think Calvinism is and it may not be what has historically been taught as Calvinism.
But, by people who are anti-Calvinists, I am absolutely a Calvinist. By people who are actually Calvinist I may not be a 100% pure Calvinist.
Because our ways are not Gods Ways and our thoughts are not Gods Thoughts I don't think we will be able to say that we are 100% accurate. Maybe we can say we are on the right track.
Come get some...
Institutes of the Christian Religion has over 1000 pages to it. I highly doubt those that are opposed to it have read and understood all of it.
Most people hate Calvinism because it goes against their imagination and will. I think the whole bible goes against our imagination and will. So its not surprising that people have such a reaction to the term "Calvinist".
I hesitate to call myself Calvinist because it is only by my own understanding of what I think Calvinism is and it may not be what has historically been taught as Calvinism.
But, by people who are anti-Calvinists, I am absolutely a Calvinist. By people who are actually Calvinist I may not be a 100% pure Calvinist.
Because our ways are not Gods Ways and our thoughts are not Gods Thoughts I don't think we will be able to say that we are 100% accurate. Maybe we can say we are on the right track.
Come get some...
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I believe Calvinism conforms to what the bible states.
Institutes of the Christian Religion has over 1000 pages to it. I highly doubt those that are opposed to it have read and understood all of it.
Most people hate Calvinism because it goes against their imagination and will. I think the whole bible goes against our imagination and will. So its not surprising that people have such a reaction to the term "Calvinist".
I hesitate to call myself Calvinist because it is only by my own understanding of what I think Calvinism is and it may not be what has historically been taught as Calvinism.
But, by people who are anti-Calvinists, I am absolutely a Calvinist. By people who are actually Calvinist I may not be a 100% pure Calvinist.
Because our ways are not Gods Ways and our thoughts are not Gods Thoughts I don't think we will be able to say that we are 100% accurate. Maybe we can say we are on the right track.
Come get some...
Institutes of the Christian Religion has over 1000 pages to it. I highly doubt those that are opposed to it have read and understood all of it.
Most people hate Calvinism because it goes against their imagination and will. I think the whole bible goes against our imagination and will. So its not surprising that people have such a reaction to the term "Calvinist".
I hesitate to call myself Calvinist because it is only by my own understanding of what I think Calvinism is and it may not be what has historically been taught as Calvinism.
But, by people who are anti-Calvinists, I am absolutely a Calvinist. By people who are actually Calvinist I may not be a 100% pure Calvinist.
Because our ways are not Gods Ways and our thoughts are not Gods Thoughts I don't think we will be able to say that we are 100% accurate. Maybe we can say we are on the right track.
Come get some...
so the issue on CC is between that dogma and Scripture teaching MFW.
-
1
- Show all
TULIP was as far as I know not coined by Calvin. It works in English, and Calvin was French by birth. He did write Five Points, but they were in response to the five points of Arminius, so they were never intended to be a complete statement of faith, just responses to the five points Arminius had made.
-
3
-
1
- Show all
I believe Calvinism conforms to what the bible states.
Institutes of the Christian Religion has over 1000 pages to it. I highly doubt those that are opposed to it have read and understood all of it.
Most people hate Calvinism because it goes against their imagination and will. I think the whole bible goes against our imagination and will. So its not surprising that people have such a reaction to the term "Calvinist".
I hesitate to call myself Calvinist because it is only by my own understanding of what I think Calvinism is and it may not be what has historically been taught as Calvinism.
But, by people who are anti-Calvinists, I am absolutely a Calvinist. By people who are actually Calvinist I may not be a 100% pure Calvinist.
Because our ways are not Gods Ways and our thoughts are not Gods Thoughts I don't think we will be able to say that we are 100% accurate. Maybe we can say we are on the right track.
Come get some...
Institutes of the Christian Religion has over 1000 pages to it. I highly doubt those that are opposed to it have read and understood all of it.
Most people hate Calvinism because it goes against their imagination and will. I think the whole bible goes against our imagination and will. So its not surprising that people have such a reaction to the term "Calvinist".
I hesitate to call myself Calvinist because it is only by my own understanding of what I think Calvinism is and it may not be what has historically been taught as Calvinism.
But, by people who are anti-Calvinists, I am absolutely a Calvinist. By people who are actually Calvinist I may not be a 100% pure Calvinist.
Because our ways are not Gods Ways and our thoughts are not Gods Thoughts I don't think we will be able to say that we are 100% accurate. Maybe we can say we are on the right track.
Come get some...
-
1
-
1
- Show all
When I wrote my reply, when I saw that I wrote 'subscribe' in my answer and in review the comment that I was replying to, I noticed that 'ascribe' was used instead so I changed what I wrote to that, accordingly, foregoing the tedious research for want of brevity in the exchange (notice my tendency for run-on sentences, haaa). Thank you, for taking the time and doing that work for me. I find myself too often at the point of exhaustion, but I've found that vocabulary had always been and remains to be the most refreshing lessons in the course of English I, II, III, & IV... but the dictionary is indeed a tome, for sure.
-
1
- Show all
You are very welcome! I love the language and understand it can be difficult or confusing for some, especially if it is not the person's first language. Some Europeans are adept in at least five languages! My sentences get to be run-on sometimes, also, especially when I am on my phone haha. But it is great for those times when I feel I have a lot to say because I use the mic function always... and then try to edit the silly auto-corrects and insert punctuation as necessary. Generally speaking, however, I prefer my laptop, and tend to keep my answers short and to-the-point. Some might even say blunt (I saw that word being used in one of your exchanges). Anywho... TGIF!!! I do hope you and yours are well...
-
1
- Show all
I also found this.
I bolded and highlighted one part of the text below and that I find quite interesting given the animus some hold for Calvin.
"Calvin rejected natural theology in favour of God’s Word as the surest path to knowledge of God and elevated Scripture, inspired and illuminated by the Holy Spirit, as the sole supreme authority for Christian faith and practice. "
Source: https://christianity.stackexchange....quote-from-calvin-about-all-five-points#62520
Given that Calvin died in Switzerland on May 27, 1564, and that what became known as 'The Five Points of Calvinism' were not written down until after 154 sessions of the Synod of Dort called in 1618, the answer has to be that Calvin could not possibly have said all those five points had to be held, as even one being dropped would collapse the whole system. The system was not finalised in that form (of five points) until seven months of deliberation in 1618 had passed.
However, in response to the comment: “Calvin had no idea of the five points since they were created 54 years after his death”, it needs to be said that that is only half true. Calvin had more than a mere ‘idea’ of all of those points, as his massive work, 'Institutes of the Christian Religion' shows. The reason why the Synod of Dort’s conclusions came to be known as 'The Five Points of Calvinism' is because his theology provided the Reformers at that Synod with all the grounds they needed to counter the rise of what became known as Arminianism. Calvin’s written works were based on his study of, and regard for, the biblical scriptures. Though he died half a century before the Synod, he could have agreed with all five points and argued for every single one of them being interlocked and essential for the unity of the Protestant faith. The situation is not unlike the way the official Trinity doctrine was formed. Long before Councils put down in writing the finished wording (to prevent men like Arius from perpetuating what was seen to be heretical teaching) the subject had been debated and written about. The climax of all that discussion over several hundred years resulted in the official Trinity doctrine. So with the debate raised by James Arminius – he and his followers wanted to change the position of Protestantism subscribing to the Belgic and Heidelberg Confessions of Faith. Upon examination, the Synod of Dort could find no ground on which to reconcile the Arminian viewpoint with that expounded in the Word of God, and Calvin had expertly expounded that Word so that the climax - the conclusions - could justifiably be called Calvin’s five points.
How, precisely, can that be claimed? Consider how Luther’s lack of a systematic theology was handled by other Protestant leaders. The Swiss Reformers were keen to organise and systematise the new Protestant theology. The teaching of Zwingli and Calvin greatly helped to enable this. Calvin’s first edition of his 'Institutes' was published in 1536, when he was aged 25 years, and yet had
[1] T.H.L. Parker, John Calvin: A Biography (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975) p50
[2] Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology (USA: InterVarsity Press, 1999) pp410-412
I bolded and highlighted one part of the text below and that I find quite interesting given the animus some hold for Calvin.
"Calvin rejected natural theology in favour of God’s Word as the surest path to knowledge of God and elevated Scripture, inspired and illuminated by the Holy Spirit, as the sole supreme authority for Christian faith and practice. "
Source: https://christianity.stackexchange....quote-from-calvin-about-all-five-points#62520
Given that Calvin died in Switzerland on May 27, 1564, and that what became known as 'The Five Points of Calvinism' were not written down until after 154 sessions of the Synod of Dort called in 1618, the answer has to be that Calvin could not possibly have said all those five points had to be held, as even one being dropped would collapse the whole system. The system was not finalised in that form (of five points) until seven months of deliberation in 1618 had passed.
However, in response to the comment: “Calvin had no idea of the five points since they were created 54 years after his death”, it needs to be said that that is only half true. Calvin had more than a mere ‘idea’ of all of those points, as his massive work, 'Institutes of the Christian Religion' shows. The reason why the Synod of Dort’s conclusions came to be known as 'The Five Points of Calvinism' is because his theology provided the Reformers at that Synod with all the grounds they needed to counter the rise of what became known as Arminianism. Calvin’s written works were based on his study of, and regard for, the biblical scriptures. Though he died half a century before the Synod, he could have agreed with all five points and argued for every single one of them being interlocked and essential for the unity of the Protestant faith. The situation is not unlike the way the official Trinity doctrine was formed. Long before Councils put down in writing the finished wording (to prevent men like Arius from perpetuating what was seen to be heretical teaching) the subject had been debated and written about. The climax of all that discussion over several hundred years resulted in the official Trinity doctrine. So with the debate raised by James Arminius – he and his followers wanted to change the position of Protestantism subscribing to the Belgic and Heidelberg Confessions of Faith. Upon examination, the Synod of Dort could find no ground on which to reconcile the Arminian viewpoint with that expounded in the Word of God, and Calvin had expertly expounded that Word so that the climax - the conclusions - could justifiably be called Calvin’s five points.
How, precisely, can that be claimed? Consider how Luther’s lack of a systematic theology was handled by other Protestant leaders. The Swiss Reformers were keen to organise and systematise the new Protestant theology. The teaching of Zwingli and Calvin greatly helped to enable this. Calvin’s first edition of his 'Institutes' was published in 1536, when he was aged 25 years, and yet had
not only given genuine dogmatic form to the cardinal doctrines of the Reformation: he had molded those doctrines into one of the classic presentations of the Christian faith. [1]
Here is a scholar’s comment on Calvin’s theology, which illustrates how he would have heartily agreed with those ‘five points’:Calvin rejected natural theology in favour of God’s Word as the surest path to knowledge of God and elevated Scripture, inspired and illuminated by the Holy Spirit, as the sole supreme authority for Christian faith and practice. Although God is adequately revealed in nature and in his Word, sin has so blinded humans that they cannot gain a true knowledge of God apart from a special illumination of the Holy Spirit that Calvin called the inner testimony of the Spirit, which is given only to the elect when they are regenerated (born again). Calvin based his doctrinal arguments and beliefs entirely on Scripture and seldom appealed to philosophy or Christian tradition as absolute authorities, because both err frequently in matters pertaining to God and salvation… For Calvin, everything that happens redounds to God’s glory, even if we humans cannot see how, and God’s glory is the purpose why everything happens, even if we are unable to reconcile it with love, mercy or justice… his teaching on [predestination] is in all essentials identical to what we have already observed in Luther and Zwingli. [2]
We can fairly assume that, because of Calvin’s systematic theology, written down in his 'Institutes of the Christian Religion' 82 years before that Synod of Dort, the Synod could summarise its response to The Remonstrance of the followers of Arminius (the Five Points of Arminianism) presented to the Dutch Parliament in 1610. That is why their response is rightly attributed to Calvin, whose theology was used to counter the five points of Arminianism. The five points of the Synod of Dort have ‘John Calvin’ written all over them![1] T.H.L. Parker, John Calvin: A Biography (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975) p50
[2] Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology (USA: InterVarsity Press, 1999) pp410-412
-
1
- Show all
I prefer believer. Although brother, son of God, and saint are fine, too. Most people just use my first name.
We must understand, believing is the de facto reality for man: they were created to believe. Unbelief is the opposite of belief. You will not find "non-believer" in the scriptures: man either believes God or resists Him.
There are only two sons in creation: one is Adam born to sin the other is Christ, a life-giving Spirit. Through rebellion, man may resist God. Such a man is an unbeliever. If man let's the Spirit of God work in His life he becomes a believer.
Furthermore, belief is active, not passive. The fruit of belief or unbelief is always seen in the activity of a man.
This is merely an outline but it captures the gist.
We must understand, believing is the de facto reality for man: they were created to believe. Unbelief is the opposite of belief. You will not find "non-believer" in the scriptures: man either believes God or resists Him.
There are only two sons in creation: one is Adam born to sin the other is Christ, a life-giving Spirit. Through rebellion, man may resist God. Such a man is an unbeliever. If man let's the Spirit of God work in His life he becomes a believer.
Furthermore, belief is active, not passive. The fruit of belief or unbelief is always seen in the activity of a man.
This is merely an outline but it captures the gist.
-
1
- Show all
The Reformers were not among the Apostles and Prophets who laid the foundation of the Church. Because of this, much of what they taught and did was not up to "building code" In fact, much of what Augustine taught was imported from the pagan religion of Manichaeism the Gnostic cult he had belonged to before his conversion to Christianity. When he was first converted, Augustine taught the traditional view that had been taught for 400 years - that human choices were the result of human freedom interacting with God's divine will
That was what happened in the Western Catholic Church and was passed down as an article of faith by the Reformers. The Eastern Church never accepted it but continued to believe that God allowed man to choose whether to follow him or not although they believed that man required some (resistable) persuation by the Holy Spirit. Here is what John Chrysostom the greatest preacher of the Third Century said about John 6:44:
John 6:44 No man can come unto Me, except the Father which has sent Me draw Him. The Manichæans [which Augustine had been}spring upon these words, saying, that nothing lies in our own power; yet the expression shows that we are masters of our will. For if a man comes to Him, says some one, what need is there of drawing? But the words do not take away our free will, but show that we greatly need assistance. And He implies not an unwilling comer, but one enjoying much succor. Then He shows also the manner in which He draws; for that men may not, again, form any material idea of God. Unlike Augustine, who spoke only Latin, Chrysostom spoke and read the original Greek text. He also interpreted the scriptures according to the historical grammatical meaning UNLIKE Augustine who preferred the Allegorical method.
That was what happened in the Western Catholic Church and was passed down as an article of faith by the Reformers. The Eastern Church never accepted it but continued to believe that God allowed man to choose whether to follow him or not although they believed that man required some (resistable) persuation by the Holy Spirit. Here is what John Chrysostom the greatest preacher of the Third Century said about John 6:44:
John 6:44 No man can come unto Me, except the Father which has sent Me draw Him. The Manichæans [which Augustine had been}spring upon these words, saying, that nothing lies in our own power; yet the expression shows that we are masters of our will. For if a man comes to Him, says some one, what need is there of drawing? But the words do not take away our free will, but show that we greatly need assistance. And He implies not an unwilling comer, but one enjoying much succor. Then He shows also the manner in which He draws; for that men may not, again, form any material idea of God. Unlike Augustine, who spoke only Latin, Chrysostom spoke and read the original Greek text. He also interpreted the scriptures according to the historical grammatical meaning UNLIKE Augustine who preferred the Allegorical method.
-
1
- Show all
The various propositions of "Calvinism" are so tightly inter-related and inter-dependent as to be inseparable - which is not the same thing as their being TRUE. Were I living in the times of the Reformers I would utterly reject them for being the ungodly murderers they were and take up with their enemies the Anabaptists who they destroyed by drowning, beheading and immolation for the "crime" of baptizing repentant adults rather than infants, studying and discussing the scriptures (rather than paying heed official ministers) designated appointed by the State. There were some minor Reformers who did not participate (like Sebastian Castellio) but the primary leaders - Luther, Calvin and Zwingly were mass murderers and, as the word says, "no murderer has eternal life residing in him"
-
1
- Show all
Good history lesson. I align with Eastern Orthodox re MFW.
Augustine had a theory that preserved the free will of the elect by saying that God foreknew which options they would freely choose and presented those to them. Of course, this did NOT preserve the omnilove of God toward the nonelect.
So, thanks to the popular Calvinist evangelist George Whitefield converting many American souls
during the Great Awakening in the 1740s the debate continues on CC.
Augustine had a theory that preserved the free will of the elect by saying that God foreknew which options they would freely choose and presented those to them. Of course, this did NOT preserve the omnilove of God toward the nonelect.
So, thanks to the popular Calvinist evangelist George Whitefield converting many American souls
during the Great Awakening in the 1740s the debate continues on CC.
Re "because of Calvin’s systematic theology, written down in his 'Institutes of the Christian Religion' 82 years before that Synod of Dort, the Synod could summarise its response to The Remonstrance of the followers of Arminius": Calvin's theology was not very systematic if it did not incorporate and harmonize with Scriptures teaching MFW and God's omnilove.