Calvinism

[John Caldwell]

I agree. My only point was that, if we are going to be biased, our bias should be towards the Word of God; not towards a preconceived notion about a belief system without regard to it's Scriptural grounds.

I am not sure we can always tell the difference. I can't tell you how many times I have been in a discussion and asked for my "opponent" to explain something he had taken for granted only to hear "its the plain teaching of Scripture". In other words, it was to him a presupposition yet identified.

 

[Steve Owen]

When discussing issues and doctrine probably the first thing needed is to arrive at a common definition of terms.

“Calvinism”, among other things, is a word that gets tossed around a lot.

Many Baptists consider “Calvinism” to refer to the “Five Points of Calvinism”.

Typically Reformed churches teach one cannot be a Baptist and a Calvinist.

The name “Calvinism” was coined by Lutherans to describe Calvin’s teachings regarding communion.

I do not see where this has been defined before, but I do see that a lack of definition has caused some issues.

I see it two ways.

I think Calvinism (historic Calvinism) is the teaching’ of the Reformed church (Presbyterian). It is based on Calvin’s work and Beza’s classification and exposition of Calvin’s works.

Within Baptist (and often evangelical) circles “Calvinism” usually means an affirmation of the five points of Calvinism. IMHO this should also include Calvinistic presuppositions that are foundational to how Calvinists understand the Five Points (e.g., Penal Substitution Theory; divine retributive justice). So while some have offered Martin Luther (for example) as a Calvinist I’d separate him from the group because of his presentation of the Atonement. I’d not consider myself a Calvinist for the same reason.

But that is just how I would use the term. What does “Calvinism” mean for most here? Is there a common definition?

Hello everyone!
'Calvinism' as generally understood today does not mean that one is a supporter of Jean Calvin, but that one holds to the position expressed in the acronym 'T.U.L.I.P.'
To be 'Reformed' is much more than to be Calvinistic. It means:
1. To uphold the five 'Solas' of the Reformation:' Grace alone, Christ alone, faith alone, the Scriptures alone, to the Glory of God alone.
2. To believe in Covenant Theology (and therefore not in Dispensationalism).
3. To believe in the Reformed Principle of Worship: that is, that nothing is to be introduced into Church worship and practice for which no probable command can be found in Scripture.
Reformed theology is not exclusively Presbyterian. There are Reformed Episcopalian churches and Reformed Baptist churches.
For me Reformed Baptist churches are true fulfillment of the Reformation since they have disposed of the last element of Romanism, infant 'baptism.'

 

[John Caldwell]

Hello everyone!
'Calvinism' as generally understood today does not mean that one is a supporter of Jean Calvin, but that one holds to position expressed in the acronym 'T.U.L.I.P.'
To be 'Reformed' is much more than to be Calvinistic. It means:
1. To uphold the five 'Solas' of the Reformation:' Grace alone, Christ alone, faith alone, the Scriptures alone, to the Glory of God alone.
2. To believe in Covenant Theology (and therefore not in Dispensationalism).
3. To believe in the Reformed Principle of Worship: that is, that nothing is to be introduced into Church worship and practice for which no probable command can be found in Scripture.
Reformed theology is not exclusively Presbyterian. There are Reformed Episcopalian churches and Reformed Baptist churches.
For me Reformed Baptist churches are true fulfillment of the Reformation since they have disposed of the last element of Romanism, infant 'baptism.'

Hey Steve.

Welcome to the discussion.

In a baptist context I have adopted your definitions. It helps discuss philosophical thoughts concerning redemption and predestination. I did not like the definition for myself as I do not hold a Calvinistic theory of the atonement (which lends a difference to the resulting conclusions) but in baptist circles Penal Substitution Theory (or at least penal subsitiutionary atonement) is presupposed.

I am not sure on a broader form as there may be some who are Calvinists (using the term in its historical context).

Are you a baptist?

 

[Willie T]

Agreed. Which is why I refuse to debate someone who insists on "One-verse" theology. The WHOLE of Scripture must uniformly claim something for it to be taken as true.

LOL My "go to" verse whenever this is brought up is: Luke 14:26.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

I agree. In fact, if Calvinism wasn't Scriptural, I personally would not adhere to the doctrine. However, when you read the Institutes, and see that nearly every page of the over 1,600 page work has Scripture written everywhere, and every one of Calvin's thoughts are formulated from the Scriptures first and foremost, you see clearly that he wrote the institutes with the Scriptures on his mind and heart. Then you read other books, like the 5 Points Defined Defended and Documented, and you see that it is a book comprised of more Scripture reference than actual commentary, you start to realize that theses men are concerned with the right understanding of the Scriptures.

The problem is 3-fold: An indoctrinated hate for Calvinism, A lackluster Scriptural interpretation method and a refusal to be corrected from the Scriptures.

Very much agreed. Once one hears the truth their knee-jerk reaction is to then hate that truth known as Calvinism. The next step is to not accept the fact their proof texts against it are used out of context. Then the refusal to receive correction from scripture. After that misrepresentations are used again, and factual corrections to them are rejected. It is a blind faith refusal to listen to facts and truth.

Then comes the name calling, lies, ridicule, mockery, garnering amens, taunting, buffoonery, grandstanding, projection, hate &c.

 

[Willie T]

Wouldn't a person more accurately be called a "Tulipian", if they followed an acronym like that instead of the teachings of John Calvin? LOL

 

[CharismaticLady]

Yea, but look at how he left (he died) .

(I say that tongue in cheek, but when he died Arminius was still considered and considered himself a Calvinist).

But at the time of his death he was vigorously trying to reform Calvinism, because it sure needed it.

 

[Mjh29]

Wouldn't a person more accurately be called a "Tulipian", if they followed an acronym like that instead of the teachings of John Calvin? LOL

Tulipian... Follower of John Calvin...

That's like saying "It's not red... it's scarlet."

 

[Steve Owen]

Hey Steve.

Welcome to the discussion.

In a baptist context I have adopted your definitions. It helps discuss philosophical thoughts concerning redemption and predestination. I did not like the definition for myself as I do not hold a Calvinistic theory of the atonement (which lends a difference to the resulting conclusions) but in baptist circles Penal Substitution Theory (or at least penal subsitiutionary atonement) is presupposed.

I am not sure on a broader form as there may be some who are Calvinists (using the term in its historical context).

Are you a baptist?

I am a Baptist. Reformed Baptists (and others) also hold to the Doctrine of Penal Substitution, but that is not exclusively Reformed since Luther taught it, as did many of the Church Fathers.

 

[John Caldwell]

I am a Baptist. Reformed Baptists (and others) also hold to the Doctrine of Penal Substitution, but that is not exclusively Reformed since Luther taught it, as did many of the Church Fathers.

I think you are mistaking about Luther (perhaps you meant Satisfaction Theory....different neauences) but that is another topic.

Are you Reformed Baptist?

 

[Preacher4Truth]

I am a Baptist. Reformed Baptists (and others) also hold to the Doctrine of Penal Substitution, but that is not exclusively Reformed since Luther taught it, as did many of the Church Fathers.

Yes, and as you know they taught it because their Father taught it them through Scripture.

 

[John Caldwell]

...did many of the Church Fathers.

Sorry, I missed this.

You are claiming that many of the Early Church Fathers taught the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement???

Do you believe they taught the rest of Calvinism as well?

 

[Steve Owen]

Yes, and as you know they taught it because their Father taught it them through Scripture.

Exactly so. It is very clearly taught in Scripture, which is actually all that matters.

 

[John Caldwell]

Exactly so...

Nevermind, Steve.

I did not realize you were you .

Glad to see you've found P4T and the gang. I look forward to reading your interactions with others here.

John

 

[Steve Owen]

I think you are mistaking about Luther (perhaps you meant Satisfaction Theory....different neauences) but that is another topic.

I don't think I am mistaken. Luther puts it very strongly: 'Paul therefore doth very well allege this general sentence out of Moses, as concerning Christ: "Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree." But Christ hath hanged on a tree, therefore Christ was accursed of God' [Commentary on Galatians 3:13. The full commentary on this verse is very extensive and well worth reading]

Are you Reformed Baptist?

I am a Christian first, but then R.B..

 

[John Caldwell]

I don't think I am mistaken. Luther puts it very strongly: 'Paul therefore doth very well allege this general sentence out of Moses, as concerning Christ: "Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree." But Christ hath hanged on a tree, therefore Christ was accursed of God' [Commentary on Galatians 3:13. The full commentary on this verse is very extensive and well worth reading]


I am a Christian first, but then R.B..

People never believe they are mistakin when they are mistaking error for truth.

The difference is neauenced. Luther based the atonement on merit rather than retributive punishment.

I am sure you will he able to see the difference between Penal Substitution Theory and Luther in this sermon excerpt:

"But now, if God’s wrath is to be taken away from me and I am to obtain grace and forgiveness, some one must merit this; for God cannot be a friend of sin nor gracious to it, nor can he remit the punishment and wrath, unless payment and satisfaction be made.

Now, no one, not even an angel of heaven, could make restitution for the infinite and irreparable injury and appease the eternal wrath of God which we had merited by our sins; except that eternal person, the Son of God himself, and he could do it only by taking our place, assuming our sins, and answering for them as though he himself were guilty of them.

This our dear Lord and only Saviour and Mediator before God, Jesus Christ, did for us by his blood and death, in which he became a sacrifice for us; and with his purity, innocence, and righteousness, which was divine and eternal, he outweighed all sin and wrath he was compelled to bear on our account; yea, he entirely engulfed and swallowed it up, and his merit is so great that God is now satisfied and says, “If he wills thereby to save, then there will be a salvation." (Sermons of Martin Luther, vol. 2, p. 344)

Now, I do not believe Luther is necessary correct (I hold the classic view) BUT Luther's view - while similar- obviously is not Penal Substitution Theory.

 

[Waiting on him]

Very much agreed. Once one hears the truth their knee-jerk reaction is to then hate that truth known as Calvinism. The next step is to not accept the fact their proof texts against it are used out of context. Then the refusal to receive correction from scripture. After that misrepresentations are used again, and factual corrections to them are rejected. It is a blind faith refusal to listen to facts and truth.

Then comes the name calling, lies, ridicule, mockery, garnering amens, taunting, buffoonery, grandstanding, projection, hate &c.

Praise God when this happens he said you would be hated for his name sake. The Pharisees were also bewildered when they were told of Him they wouldn’t be entering in. Jesus chose the 12 Jesus chose Paul, now we choose, is God a God that changes?

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

John Caldwell,

That is an odd claim (and a logical fallacy)

.

I understand it to be scriptural.

Calvinism opposes free-will in salvation because with claim it makes man the author of their salvation.

yes..personally I do not believe free will exists.

For consistency, that same Calvinist would have to agree that man controls God should man's sin prevent God from simple forgiveness. Of course, to be fair, I'm not sure there is a consistent Calvinist.

???No man controls God at all. I do not understand this at all.

Calvinism exalts man in that it views human sin as binding upon God by imposing upon God a humanistic form of “justice” and holding God as Slave to that justice.

could you offer any Cal who teaches this?

Calvinism often presents God as “just and the justifier of sinners” as a “problem” God had to solve. How could God be just (meaning He has to punish the sins of sinners) and at the same time show mercy and justify sinners.

could you offer any Cal who teaches this?

The solution, of course, is that Calvinism takes Romans 3:26 completely out of context and makes a “problem” or question out of a proclamation. It is these little errors that pile up and ultimately condemn the philosophy

.[/QUOTE]
could you offer any Cal who teaches this?

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

You have over 20 centuries of confessions in the RCC. Yet neither of us are Catholic. In fact, the Reformers sought to correct flaws they saw in the system. (your logic is lacking here).

A confession has to be accurate. The corrupt RC church was ruled by unsaved persons so it has a bad confession.

 

[John Caldwell]

John Caldwell,

.

I understand it to be scriptural.


yes..personally I do not believe free will exists.



???No man controls God at all. I do not understand this at all.

could you offer any Cal who teaches this?

could you offer any Cal who teaches this?
.

could you offer any Cal who teaches this?[/QUOTE]


Yes, I can offer Calvinists who teach all three of those ideas. (I'm surprised you've yet encountered the ideas):

John MacArthur teaches this "the question then has been lingering throughout all of history, how can He do it? How can He possibly do this? And the words here in verse 26 frame the issue. How can He be just and the justifier of sinners who have faith in Jesus Christ? How can God be just and the justifier? That is a dilemma." (MacArthur's sermon The Gospel Satisfies God's Demands)

Arthur Pink takes this approach in A.W. Pink’s Studies in the Scriptures 1934-1935 page 66 (also in The Doctrine of Justification page 5).

John Calvin presented this in his commentary on Romans (page 335).

C.H. Spurgeon also presented God’s justice as the “great barrier to the salvation of sinners” (Spurgeon’s sermon “Justice Satisfied” in The Spurgeon Series 1859&1860).

R.C. Sproul presents this same thing in The Righteous Shall Live By Faith, page 140.

Mark Dever presents this (along with Packer) in In My Place Condemned He Stood (page 40).

John Owen states this in his commentary on Hebrews.

J.I. Packer expresses this view in Knowing God when he explains how God has to meet the demands of justice in order to justify the sinner.

John Piper (on of my favorites) speaks to this as well in The Just and the Justifier.

John Gill presents this as a problem to be solved ("God the Father contrived the scheme and method of justification; it would have been a puzzling question to angels and men, had he not resolved it" in The grace of God, page 47.

Martin Lloyd-Jones confirms all three when he writes that "[a]ccording to Paul, the great problem for God himself was how to forgive man and yet be just." (Martin Lloyd-Jones, A Merciful and Faithful High Priest, chapter 9)