Greetings from an Orthodox Calvinist.

[Solly]

Ok Ok, it's been done; downright plagiarism I know.

But what they hey, let's try it and see.

I am one of them nasty tricksey Calvinists that want to send you all to hell, etc.

Do you want to know about it? Ask here. I or my fellow Elect will try to answer.

Do you want to question an aspect of it? Ditto.

Do you want to smash it? Go somewhere else; see my bye-line.

This won't be a debate thread,I don't have time for that; TW is not my first love, I'm afraid, since I am a minister, and my people must come first. But I'll do what I can, and hope others will to.

You might learn something; and I might learn something too!!

peace in Him

ps, don't expect quick responses.

[Jaltus]

Explain what changed in humanity at the fall, please.

That has always been one of my biggest sticking points with Calvinism.

[GrayPilgrim]

We are discussing that very point in the Will vs Freewill thread.

[Solly]

Jaltus.

Since you believe in Total Depravity yourself, I would not have thought our ideas on this would be that far apart. ;)

My initial thoughts, pending further research, is that we no longer had the desire or motive to respond to God - this is the primary change.

When A&E made their choice, that set the direction of their mind/soul, and left them with a bias toward sin; a choice confirmed by God who removed his gracious influence - which is the second part of the event. It was such a fundamental choice that they made: God or the serpent, that it altered them and their relationship with God once and for all; I think scripture draws this out particularly by the fact that while Eve was deceived and was first in the transgression, Adam had no such excuse: he willingly took of the fruit with eyes wide open.

All else flows from that "willful act". God no longer provided the necessary input, but rather "gave them up" Rom 1. Our mental faculties, while diminished, remain broadly the same; our psycho-physical makeup ditto. But the driving force behind it all was no longer God oriented but self oriented, and we are driven by nonGod forces, such as concupiscience, sin (as a power) and the devil.

[Hitch]

Hmmmmmmmm seems obvious. After the fall man hides from God.

H

[geebob]

:hi:

[efta777]

How do all of you Calvanists feel about the idea of limited atonement? I've always felt that this was the most unnecissary aspect of Calvanism, and that it doesn't have much of a Biblical foundation.

[smilax]

John vi, 37: "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."

Notice the order. First, the Father gave. Then all of those that were given to the Son will inevitably come to Christ. The Son came to save lost sheep, not to mutate goats into sheep. The alternative to limited atonement is that Christ's death is hypothetical universalism, which means it is possible for Christ's death to be effective for everyone. But this means that the efficacy of His sacrifice is contingent upon our faith, and this is what we cannot stand. God is sovereign, and no man's freedom can defeat His will.

John vi, 39: "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."

If hypothetical universalism (or Amyraldism for that matter) is true, then this is a lie. Everyone Christ intended to save will be saved. His sacrifice in and of itself actually accomplished something: it guaranteed salvation for the elect. Hypothetical universalism also means that it is possible for no one to be saved. Of course, we all know that everyone is "limited" in some sense, but it is the reason for the limiting that is the question. Calvinists say it is God's sovereignty. Arminians say it is man's freedom. Practically speaking, only the elect (whether in a Calvinist or Arminian paradigm) will be saved anyway, so in a very real sense, Christ only (effectively) died for the elect. The question is now whether Christ meant to do that. And we say that He saved exactly whom He meant to save.

This is not to deny the universal call to repentance, which the many verses that speak of the universal extent of Christ's death imply. The question is simply whether He intended to die for them in an efficacious way. Our Lord's death was certainly enough to make people responsible to accept Him, and in that sense, it is sufficient for all. Some will try to limit the universal-sounding verses to mean only the elect, but I prefer to go with the distinction between God's decretive and preceptive wills; the former cannot be thwarted, (creation, judgment, atonement,) while the latter deals with laws and human responsibility, (don't eat of the tree of knowledge, don't kill, repent.)

So Christ's death is sufficient for all (preceptively,) but only effective for the elect (decretively.)

Romans viii, 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."

All those whom God calls will be saved, and not all people are saved. Therefore, not all were called. And if they were not called, then Christ did not intend to save them.

I Timothy iv, 10: "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."

Now in what sense is Christ everyone's Savior? After all, does this verse suggest universalism?

And now for the classic by John Owen, "For whom did Christ die?"
The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

1. All the sins of all men.
2. All the sins of some men, or
3. Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:

1. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
2. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
3. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer, "Because of unbelief."

I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!

[Arminian]

John vi, 37: "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."

Notice the order. First, the Father gave. Then all of those that were given to the Son will inevitably come to Christ. The Son came to save lost sheep, not to mutate goats into sheep. The alternative to limited atonement is that Christ's death is hypothetical universalism, which means it is possible for Christ's death to be effective for everyone. But this means that the efficacy of His sacrifice is contingent upon our faith, and this is what we cannot stand. God is sovereign, and no man's freedom can defeat His will.

Of course the Father gave them to Christ. The mistake you make is that you think it teaches that God gives Christ unbelievers to become believers. However, Christ is teaching the Father's word and those who believe can come to Christ because they are the FATHER'S through faith. Notice that Christ is asking that they believe the Father (cf. 5:24; 5:36; 5:45;7:16, ect...).

Life is in the Son (5:25), and you can't get in apart from believing the Father's word. John 6 employs the imagery of the Israelites at Kadesh-barnea as they wait to cross into the promised land. This -- John 6, that is -- is the the ulimate EXODUS of which the OT testified. Yet once more, faith is the means of crossing over. They must believe the message of the One who has seen God.

Remain in Him,
Jake, the lowly layman

[Arminian]

I Timothy iv, 10: "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."

Now in what sense is Christ everyone's Savior? After all, does this verse suggest universalism?

Setting aside the false choice in your final sentence, the word you traslated as "specially" serves a partitive function, indicating that of all those for whom Christ died, he is even more the savior of those who believe than those who don't. In other words, there is no limit on the atonement.

[Pilgrim]

01-28-2003 @ 12:15 PM
Jaltus:

Explain what changed in humanity at the fall, please.

That has always been one of my biggest sticking points with Calvinism.

You mean besides the fact that they suddenly fealt guilt and the fact that they lost immortality?

[Jaltus]

Yes. I want to know what about their HUMANITY changed, if anything at all.

Some say the imago dei changed or was lost. Some say free-will was lost. Calvinists say a lot of things, but I would like to read a solid defense/explanation of what changed and why.

[Pilgrim]

Let me ask this question...is it your assertion that nothing changed at the fall?

[Jaltus]

I am not asserting anything, I am asking a question. I am on a fact finding mission, not a debate cue.

[Pilgrim]

Well off the top of my head I would say the lost their innocense. That is, they gained knowleedge.

Pilgrim

[Popeye]

I'd say the biggest thing they lost was spiritual life (i.e. became spiritually dead).

[Pilgrim]

02-24-2003 @ 08:07 PM
Popeye:

I'd say the biggest thing they lost was spiritual life (i.e. became spiritually dead).

I agree with you and I think most would. Hoever, I think Jaltus was looking for something a little less obvious. Something of, perhaps, a noetic nature that would change their ability to turn to or reason back to God?

[Rubia Warren]

Solly,
When you get back on on Monday, will you please explain Calvinism to me? But remember to give me the "calvinism for blondes" version- you know I can't pay attention very long. LOL
I just would like to have a decent understanding of what Calvinism consists of. Thanks!

[adam.naranjo]

Jaltus,

I have one for you, if you dont mind.

Are you familiar with Van Til's work regarding the fall and reason?
Or the reformed view in general?
The creator/creature distinction that was and always will exist, and how that fits in....is this where your going?

adam

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 05:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
La Rubia:

Solly,
When you get back on on Monday, will you please explain Calvinism to me? But remember to give me the "calvinism for blondes" version- you know I can't pay attention very long. LOL
I just would like to have a decent understanding of what Calvinism consists of. Thanks!

Calvinism is more than TULIP! Solly would have to write a whole institutes of the Christian Religion to explain it in full! I am sure he will give you a good condensed version though he seems to be really good at that. I may jump into the coversation at some point.
By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

[Rubia Warren]

Cool, thanks! (what the heck is TULIP, anyway?)

[joelkaki]

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perserverance of the Saints

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

La Rubia,

Let's get some of Calvin's ideas straight from the horse's mouth. Here are some sad, unbiblical ideas presented by John Calvin himself. These ideas presented by Calvin cause God to make the type of statement He made in Genesis 6:6...

Genesis 6
6:6
And the Lord repented that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

Here are Calvin's quotes...


Calvin's Institutes--Ages Digital Library Version 5, Book 3

Page 1056 - Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children.

Page 1068 - As all who are of the number of the reprobate are vessels formed unto dishonor, so they cease not by their perpetual crimes to provoke the anger of God against them, and give evident signs of the judgement which God has already passed upon them; so far is it from being true that they vainly contend against it.

Page 1065 - ...when we say, that God, according to the good pleasure of his will, without any regard to merit, elects those whom he chooses for sons, while he rejects and reprobates others...It is asked, how it happens that of the two, between whom there is no difference of merit, God in his election adopts the one, and passes by the other?...when God elects one and rejects another, it is owing not to any respect to the individual, but entirely to his own mercy which is free to display and exert itself when and where he pleases.

Page 1077 - When he first shines with the light of his word on the undeserving, he gives a sufficiently clear proof of his free goodness. Here, therefore, boundless goodness is displayed, but not so as to bring all to salvation, since a heavier judgement awaits the reprobate for rejecting the evidence of his love, God also, to display his own glory, withholds from them the effectual agency of his Spirit....And he acts not according to the gratitude of each, but according to his election. Of this you have a striking example in Luke when the Jews and Gentiles in common heard the discourse of Paul and Barnabus. Though they were all instructed in the same word, it is said, that "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed..." How can we deny that calling is gratuitous, when election alone reigns in it even to its conclusion?

You see La Rubia, the teachings of Calvin have infected Christians worldwide. The "U" in TULIP is as follows... Calvin taught that God chooses some for salvation, and reprobates others to hell "for His own pleasure..." and without regard to merit of the individual. This is not the God of the Bible. God sent His Son to die for the world. Christ died for the righteous and for the ungodly (Romans 5:6). God does not predestine anyone to hell, as Calvin would like us to believe. God has provided a way of salvation for those who freely choose Christ.

However, Calvin would like us to believe that man cannot freely choose Christ. This addresses the "T" in the TULIP. Calvin teaches that man is born without any desire to seek God, and God must "regenerate" man and give man the ability to believe. Again, this is contrary to Scripture. Christ gives light to every man coming into the world (John 1:9). We have a conscience written on our hearts from God (Romans 2:14,15). The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork (Psalm 19). The gospel has been preached "in every creature" (Colossians 1:23).

The "I" in TULIP teaches that God saves His elect only. We, as mere humans cannot know for sure who God's elect are and are not. If a human being desires to be with the Lord, and God did not "elect" that person, then there is nothing that person can do to make it to heaven. If someone wants to reject God, and God has "elected" that person, then God will drag them kicking and screaming into heaven.

The "P" in the TULIP teaches that God makes His believers persevere. Calvin taught "eternal security" for the believer because God makes them persevere. However, Christ taught that believers in Matthew must endure to the end to be saved (Matthew 24:13). Believer's names can be blotted out of the Book of Life if they "do not overcome" (Revelation 3:5). Judas was a believer who fell away... Peter admonishes the "elect" to "be even more diligent to make (their) calling and election sure. For if (they) do these things, (they) would never stumble," (2 Peter 1:10).

Finally, the "L" in TULIP is a result of the other 4 points. It is an apparent logical conclusion to an illogical, unbiblical premise. For more on this, feel free to check out the debate between doogieduff and joelkaki in the "Boxing Ring" on Limited Atonement.

--Jeremy

[joelkaki]

I just wrote a whole reply to this, and the forum gave some weird message, and I lost the whole 6900 characters. And I was going to get 3 anti-spam points too.:bawl: :smile: Oh well, I'll try to get back to this soon.

Joel

[joelkaki]

You see La Rubia, the teachings of Calvin have infected Christians worldwide. The "U" in TULIP is as follows... Calvin taught that God chooses some for salvation, and reprobates others to hell "for His own pleasure..." and without regard to merit of the individual.

Of course without regard to merit. We cannot merit anything in our salvation. It is wholly of God. God elects not on anything in us, not on us doing good or evil but according to his purpose. (Rom 9:11).


This is not the God of the Bible. God sent His Son to die for the world. Christ died for the righteous and for the ungodly (Romans 5:6).

What version do you have? I don't see anything about Christ dying for the righteous. "There is none righteous, no not one." (Romans 3:10). There aren't any righteous, so how could Christ have died for the righteous. The point is, we are all ungodly, we're all rotten sinners, and that ugly picture is what Christ died for. He died for those without strength. The righteous would have no need of a Savior. Christ died for the ungodly.


God does not predestine anyone to hell, as Calvin would like us to believe. God has provided a way of salvation for those who freely choose Christ.

God has provided a way of salvation for those who will choose him. Yet, as the "T" shows, no one will naturally choose him.


However, Calvin would like us to believe that man cannot freely choose Christ. This addresses the "T" in the TULIP. Calvin teaches that man is born without any desire to seek God, and God must "regenerate" man and give man the ability to believe. Again, this is contrary to Scripture.

Really? Let's look at Romans 3:10-11

There is none righteous, no not one. There is none who understands, there is none who seeks after God.

Biblically, no one seeks after God. Men are in rebellion against God. They are at emnity with him. They don't want him. They are by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:3). The natural man cannot receive the things of God. (1 Corinthians 2:14). Men are dead in sin. (Eph 2:1). Dead men cannot choose to become alive.


Christ gives light to every man coming into the world (John 1:9).

That says nothing about enabling them to trust God. Sure, God's attributes are clearly displayed for us all around in creation. Every man has the light to see that. Indeed, they are without excuse. But they cannot choose Christ as the only way of salvation. John 1:9 does not say that men can choose him.


We have a conscience written on our hearts from God (Romans 2:14,15).

No Calvinist that I know of disagrees with that statement. Sure, we all have a conscience. Total depravity does not mean that we are all as bad as we possibly can be. Rather it means sin has corrupted every aspect of our lives--our minds, heart, will, emotions, bodies, etc--they're all corrupted by sin. Some prefer the term, "Total Inability." Men are unable to choose God, because they do not seek him.


The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork (Psalm 19). The gospel has been preached "in every creature" (Colossians 1:23).

Again, I agree. The heavens certainly do declare the glory of God. But that does not mean that simply seeing the glory of God in creation is enough to be saved. These say nothing about man's ability to accept Christ.
Man's heart is "deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)


The "I" in TULIP teaches that God saves His elect only. We, as mere humans cannot know for sure who God's elect are and are not.

Well that makes sense. God saves those whom he determined to save. We certainly do not know who is elect or not just looking into a crowd of people. That is why the gospel is preached to all alike.


If a human being desires to be with the Lord, and God did not "elect" that person, then there is nothing that person can do to make it to heaven.

This is a common misconception and straw man about Calvinism. The point is, no man naturally desires to be with the Lord. They all hate him. Sure, men want the benefits that only God can give, but they do not seek God in his majestic sovereignty. If God did not elect that person, then they will never desire to be with the Lord.


If someone wants to reject God, and God has "elected" that person, then God will drag them kicking and screaming into heaven.

Another common straw man. Either you don't understand Calvinism, Acts9, or you have been misinformed, or you are deliberately creating a straw man. Either way, you misrepresent Calvinism completely. God doesn't drag anyone "kicking and screaming into heaven." Those whom God effectually draws to himself (the elect) have their natures changed. God makes us alive. (Eph 2:1). He regenerates us (Titus 3:5). He gives us a new heart, one that does seek after God, one that is able to accept Christ, because it is no longer dead in sin. Those whom he regenerates then want God. They do not have to be dragged kicking and screaming. They want to be with God.


The "P" in the TULIP teaches that God makes His believers persevere. Calvin taught "eternal security" for the believer because God makes them persevere. However, Christ taught that believers in Matthew must endure to the end to be saved (Matthew 24:13). Believer's names can be blotted out of the Book of Life if they "do not overcome" (Revelation 3:5). Judas was a believer who fell away... Peter admonishes the "elect" to "be even more diligent to make (their) calling and election sure. For if (they) do these things, (they) would never stumble," (2 Peter 1:10).

Perserverance of the Saints is perhaps better stated, "Preservation of the Saints." We don't perservere in our own power. We are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation (1 Pet 1:5). Those who have trusted in Christ are sealed by the Holy Spirit, who GUARANTEES our inheritance. (Eph 1:13-14). God will complete the work he has begun in us. (Philippians 1:6). Christ's sheep will by no means perish. (John 10:27-28). Nothing can separate the elect from the love of Christ. (Rom 8:38-39) No created thing can separate us from Christ's love, and that includes our own will. A regenerated will never will finally reject Christ, but will perservere through the power of God.
Those who profess Christ, and then later reject him, were not truly saved. Proof?

1 John 2:19--They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

Those that go out from us were not really of us. They professed faith, but it was not genuine. Those who genuinely believe will continue in that faith. Instances such as Judas--He did not truly believe.


Finally, the "L" in TULIP is a result of the other 4 points. It is an apparent logical conclusion to an illogical, unbiblical premise. For more on this, feel free to check out the debate between doogieduff and joelkaki in the "Boxing Ring" on Limited Atonement.


It is a result of the other points, yes. If Christ paid for all the sins of every single man, then every single man must be saved. If Christ paid for the sins of every single man, and not all are saved, then the Father is unjust, for he punished both Christ and the person for the same sins. If Christ paid for the sins of every single man, and not all are saved, then Christ's death was not completely effectual. But yes, check out the debate.

Joel

[joelkaki]

La Rubia, here is a summary of Calvinism from the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics. Solly can give you a fuller one I am sure, but I thought you might want to see this:

"Salvation is accomplished by the almighty power of the triune God. The Father chose a people, the Son died for them, the Holy Spirit makes Christ's death effective by bringing the elect to faith and repentance, thereby causing them to willingly obey the Gospel. The entire process (election, redemption, regeneration) is the work of God and is by grace alone. Thus God, not man, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation.

Total Depravity (Total Inability)
Total Depravity is probably the most misunderstood tenet of Calvinism. When Calvinists speak of humans as "totally depraved," they are making an extensive, rather than an intensive statement. The effect of the fall upon man is that sin has extended to every part of his personality -- his thinking, his emotions, and his will. Not necessarily that he is intensely sinful, but that sin has extended to his entire being.

The unregenerate (unsaved) man is dead in his sins (Romans 5:12). Without the power of the Holy Spirit, the natural man is blind and deaf to the message of the gospel (Mark 4:11f). This is why Total Depravity has also been called "Total Inability." The man without a knowledge of God will never come to this knowledge without God's making him alive through Christ (Ephesians 2:1-5).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U
Unconditional Election
Unconditional Election is the doctrine which states that God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the offer of the gospel. God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4-8).

This doctrine does not rule out, however, man's responsibility to believe in the redeeming work of God the Son (John 3:16-18). Scripture presents a tension between God's sovereignty in salvation, and man's responsibility to believe which it does not try to resolve. Both are true -- to deny man's responsibility is to affirm an unbiblical hyper-calvinism; to deny God's sovereignty is to affirm an unbiblical Arminianism.

The elect are saved unto good works (Ephesians 2:10). Thus, though good works will never bridge the gulf between man and God that was formed in the Fall, good works are a result of God's saving grace. This is what Peter means when he admonishes the Christian reader to make his "calling" and "election" sure (2 Peter 1:10). Bearing the fruit of good works is an indication that God has sown seeds of grace in fertile soil.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

L
Limited Atonement (Particular Redemption)
Limited Atonement is a doctrine offered in answer to the question, "for whose sins did Christ atone?" The Bible teaches that Christ died for those whom God gave him to save (John 17:9). Christ died, indeed, for many people, but not all (Matthew 26:28). Specifically, Christ died for the invisible Church -- the sum total of all those who would ever rightly bear the name "Christian" (Ephesians 5:25).

This doctrine often finds many objections, mostly from those who think that Limited Atonement does damage to evangelism. We have already seen that Christ will not lose any that the father has given to him (John 6:37). Christ's death was not a death of potential atonement for all people. Believing that Jesus' death was a potential, symbolic atonement for anyone who might possibly, in the future, accept him trivializes Christ's act of atonement. Christ died to atone for specific sins of specific sinners. Christ died to make holy the church. He did not atone for all men, because obviously all men are not saved. Evangelism is actually lifted up in this doctrine, for the evangelist may tell his congregation that Christ died for sinners, and that he will not lose any of those for whom he died!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I
Irresistible Grace
The result of God's Irresistible Grace is the certain response by the elect to the inward call of the Holy Spirit, when the outward call is given by the evangelist or minister of the Word of God. Christ, himself, teaches that all whom God has elected will come to a knowledge of him (John 6:37). Men come to Christ in salvation when the Father calls them (John 6:44), and the very Spirit of God leads God's beloved to repentance (Romans 8:14). What a comfort it is to know that the gospel of Christ will penetrate our hard, sinful hearts and wondrously save us through the gracious inward call of the Holy Spirit (I Peter 5:10)!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P
Perseverance of the Saints
Perseverance of the Saints is a doctrine which states that the saints (those whom God has saved) will remain in God's hand until they are glorified and brought to abide with him in heaven. Romans 8:28-39 makes it clear that when a person truly has been regenerated by God, he will remain in God's stead. The work of sanctification which God has brought about in his elect will continue until it reaches its fulfillment in eternal life (Phil. 1:6). Christ assures the elect that he will not lose them and that they will be glorified at the "last day" (John 6:39). The Calvinist stands upon the Word of God and trusts in Christ's promise that he will perfectly fulfill the will of the Father in saving all the elect. "

This can be found at http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/ You might want to check out their site. It is pretty good. There are many more articles on Calvinism there.

Joel

[Arminian]

OK, I understand that Solly has requested that this not be a place of debate, so I just want the answer to one important question from a Calvinist perspective: How many Arminians does it take to screw in a lightbulb? :huh:

[Solly]

How many want to?

(Apologies to all the contributors here, but I had completely forgotten about this thread)

[Arminian]

(Apologies to all the contributors here, but I had completely forgotten about this thread)

Even though it was involuntary, we still hold you accountable, but not anyone that made you do it.

[joelkaki]

Sorry I got into debate here, Solly. Forgot this was a no debate thread.


Joel

[Solly]

No probs Joel, it will happen sometimes, just to clear up issues.

As for the abridged versoin of Calvinism mentioned above, I guess that is a tough one, since too often it is seen as just being the five points, which wasn't Calvin's starting point, nor many people's. For myself, although i am a Calvinistic minister, I don't have to mention predestination and election that often, certainly not to preach on specifically - although I will have to deal with it as I go on in Romans. When I think about it, it just seems to come out as a basic statement of Christianity:

God: God rules OK.

Chorus: Oh no you don't

God: Oh yes I do.

Chorus, somewhat chastened: Oh...yes you do, don't you. Sorry

God: The end. Let's party.

Rather diminished, but still "a multitude without number" Chorus:Hurrah; Glory to God in the highest.

Issues of freewill seem to be arguing about the details. it doesn't change what really happens, and my own experience in conversion reflects calvinistic views on conversion. How many debates about calvinism come down to this one theme?
The problem Reformed Christians have with FreeWill as a component in any evangelical theology, is that it does seem to lead down the road to semi-pelagianism, soft lights, mood music, decisionism, four spiritual laws, sign here - thank you, you're a Christian now. Arminians, I expect, would say that these distortions are not genuine Arminian doctrine.
On the Calvinistic side, the doctrine of Total Inability could lead to "hyper-Calvinism" in which the lost aren't addressed at all, and it is all left up to God, as if he doesn't use means in conversion. Reformed sometimes feel that Arminians picture this as being the logical destination of Reformed doctrine, whereas it is no more so than the distortions of Arminianism. My contention with Arminianism is not it's doctrine of freewill, but the Weslyan Holiness doctrine that has birthed the modern Pentecostal and Charismatic movements. For me, that is the serious fault to be addressed, but I don't think either Arminian or Jaltus are Weslyans in that sense. Perhaps Wesley's Son is?

[Arminian]

Solly,

It should be noted that the holiness movement is not an Arminian movement. It doesn't come from Arminianism, nor were those who founded it only Arminain. The old Methodist camp was divided on the issue of C/A, but they did meet together. Those of the Calvinst camp were eventually absorbed into the other Calvinist denominations. In fact, there was much competition for the Presby side for those people.

And you should note that the "Pentecostal and Charismatic movements" are not dedicated to the Arminian perspective any more than the Calvinist perspective. In fact, the mose recent systematic theology to come out from TEDS is by a member of the Vinyard movement, who is a Calvinist.

You may want to study the Kenswick Convention, which is entirely Calvinistic. It is a thriving movement.

[Rubia Warren]

What's the Wesleyan Holiness doctrine?

[Solly]

Today @ 01:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58443#post58443)
Arminian:

Solly,

It should be noted that the holiness movement is not an Arminian movement. It doesn't come from Arminianism, nor were those who founded it only Arminain. The old Methodist camp was divided on the issue of C/A, but they did meet together. Those of the Calvinst camp were eventually absorbed into the other Calvinist denominations. In fact, there was much competition for the Presby side for those people.

And you should note that the "Pentecostal and Charismatic movements" are not dedicated to the Arminian perspective any more than the Calvinist perspective. In fact, the mose recent systematic theology to come out from TEDS is by a member of the Vinyard movement, who is a Calvinist.

You may want to study Kenwickianism (sp?) which is entirely Calvinistic. It is a thriving movement.

Arm
My reading of history is somewhat different from yours. WESLYAN Arminian doctrine speaks of being perfected in love, and of a second stage of sanctification - I have this on the authority of primary texts. This led to the idea of a second blessing that filtered into the Methodist derived holiness movements. This paved the way for the doctrine of the Baptism of the Spirit second blessing in the Pentecostal movements that came out of the holiness movements.

Keswick is not wholly Calvinist, and never was. Men like Moule were Calvinistic but were never "five pointers"; their doctrine of sanctification was never Reformed, but owed most of it's ideas to the second blessing/higher life doctrines.

However, if you have misunderstood my point, I restate it; my criticism is of the "holiness" teaching that came out of the Weslyan Arminian camp, not of Arminian doctrine itself, since I don't see them as being the same. However, Wesley promulgated them as Arminianism. Arminius did not hold such views.

[Arminian]

Solly,


My reading of history is somewhat different from yours. WESLYAN Arminian doctrine speaks of being perfected in love, and of a second stage of sanctification - I have this on the authority of primary texts.

And I didn't negate that. Again, Wesley wrote about it, but so did Whitefield (who later changed his tune) and all the other Calvinist members. The Holiness movement was just that: a holiness movement. It was a Bible study and worship movement that centered on holiness. Memebers came from all denominations and theological backgrounds.


Keswick is not wholly Calvinist, and never was. Men like Moule were Calvinistic but were never "five pointers"; their doctrine of sanctification was never Reformed, but owed most of it's ideas to the second blessing/higher life doctrines.

Well, if your point is that not all of them are/were 5-pointers, I won't refute that. However, they have always rejected Arminianism, and their leaders have clearly subscribed to 4 or 5 points of Calvinism, for the most part.

The point is that the association you make with Arminianism is one you should also make with Calvinism, if you are going to make any association at all.