Is there such a thing as a 3 or 4 point Calvinist?

[GoBahnsen]

Doesn't Calvinism stand or fall on all 5 points? If you deny one, how do you surgically remove it from the others? They are all connected. One supports the other.

Yet many Christians today try to hang in between, saying they are moderate Calvinists or Calminians. Can it be done? I'm not set in concrete on this one, but my suspicion is that... if a partial Calvinist was really pressed, he/she would be found to side with all 5 points of the Remonstrants. Or a four point Calvinist, when pressed, might just realize that they are in fact a 5 pointer afterall.

Yet in all practicality of his/ her practice as a Christian, most evangelical Arminians might really be just confused Calvinists. What do you all think?
Are you really just confused Calvinists or do you think the truth lies somewhere between the two? Or that Calvinism is just plain wrong?

[Berean Todd]

What do you all think?
Are you really just confused Calvinists or do you think the truth lies somewhere between the two? Or that Calvinism is just plain wrong?
I feel that, just as is often the case in the world, the truth lies between the two extremes. I think Arminians unwisely deny God's sovereignty and such, I think full Calvinists have issues as well. I am quite comfortable with my mild-Calvinistic stance. If I was forced to choose one or the other I would side with the Calvinists absolutely, but I don't see the need to because I find, as I said, the truth to be in between; only it is much, much, much closer to the Calvinistic side.

As for specific enumeration of my beliefs, I will leave that to the other thread for now, as I don't feel like regurgitating argumentation/statements made over there, at least at this point.

[GoBahnsen]

I feel that, just as is often the case in the world, the truth lies between the two extremes. I think Arminians unwisely deny God's sovereignty and such, I think full Calvinists have issues as well. I am quite comfortable with my mild-Calvinistic stance. If I was forced to choose one or the other I would side with the Calvinists absolutely, but I don't see the need to because I find, as I said, the truth to be in between; only it is much, much, much closer to the Calvinistic side.

As for specific enumeration of my beliefs, I will leave that to the other thread for now, as I don't feel like regurgitating argumentation/statements made over there, at least at this point.No problem. I'm glad to get your input Todd. One of these days I hope to have this debate so under my belt, that it would bore me to talk about it.

That's the way I feel about dialoguing with Mormons or JW's. I did so much of it in the past, that I'm like "Please ...enough". Yet I would love to discuss the truth with an "open" cult member. A seeking Mormon, instead of one ready to go into the "blank stare" and bear me "his/her testimony".

[Kenny]

Well, this is one of those times where I feel like just saying what I think but am too lazy to support it, so here come the unsubstantiated assertions!

I think the defining point is irresistible grace. Anyone who denies that one departs from a Calvinistic soteriology. In order of importance, I think the other points rank as follows: unconditional election, total depravity, perseverance of the saints, and limited atonement (why that order – because I said so! :tongue:). I do think that to be consistent, one who accepts irresistible grace, must also accept unconditional election. But, both Augustine and Aquinas, who did accept irresistible grace (that Thomas held a high doctrine of predestination is a surprise to many, but he did), had nuanced views of perseverance which do not fall in line with the standard Calvinist view but are nonetheless consistent, imho, and given both of their respective views on the atonement, the question of limited atonement didn't really crop up for them (so far as I'm aware at least), and while Augustine accepted a version of total depravity, Aquinas did not. Yet, I think Augustine and Aquinas held largely internally consistent theological systems (how Biblically faithful these systems were is another question).

[GoBahnsen]

Well, this is one of those times where I feel like just saying what I think but am too lazy to support it, so here come the unsubstantiated assertions!

I think the defining point is irresistible grace. Anyone who denies that one departs from a Calvinistic soteriology. In order of importance, I think the other points rank as follows: unconditional election, total depravity, perseverance of the saints, and limited atonement (why that order – because I said so! :tongue:). I do think that to be consistent, one who accepts irresistible grace, must also accept unconditional election. But, both Augustine and Aquinas, who did accept irresistible grace (that Thomas held a high doctrine of predestination is a surprise to many, but he did), had nuanced views of perseverance which do not fall in line with the standard Calvinist view but are nonetheless consistent, imho, and given both of their respective views on the atonement, the question of limited atonement didn't really crop up for them (so far as I'm aware at least), and while Augustine accepted a version of total depravity, Aquinas did not. Yet, I think Augustine and Aquinas held largely internally consistent theological systems (how Biblically faithful these systems were is another question).Nice one Kenny. It's been so long since I've seen you on one of my threads, I think you must have broke a few cobwebs getting in here. Irresistible grace huh? Why?

Seems Limited Atonement is the one that chokes most 4 pointer's, at least. So go ahead, give me your opinion as to why you see that as the defining point. I would really like to read it bro.

[Kenny]

Well, I think my opinion may have more to do with my own reason for being a Calvinist more than it does with historical considerations, but what I find to be the most valuable insight of a Calvinist soteriology is that salvation is all by grace, that we contribute nothing to it, either actively (by making a "decision") or passively (by "not resisting"). Well that, in a nut shell, is irresistible grace.

If I try to imagine Calvinism without irresistible grace, I can't see anything distinctively Calvinist left. I don't see how one could hold consistently to unconditional election without irresistible grace (well, maybe you could hold to some cooperate variety, but it would not extend to individuals). You could have a softer version of total depravity (classical Arminians do), perseverance of the saints (many Arminians do), and even a form of limited atonement (Christ's death was only intended to save those which God foreknew would respond to grace), but without irresistible grace and unconditional election, I don't see what's distinctively Calvinist about these doctrines anymore.

In Christ,
Kenny

[Sheepdog]

I feel that, just as is often the case in the world, the truth lies between the two extremes. I think Arminians unwisely deny God's sovereignty and such, I think full Calvinists have issues as well. I am quite comfortable with my mild-Calvinistic stance. If I was forced to choose one or the other I would side with the Calvinists absolutely, but I don't see the need to because I find, as I said, the truth to be in between; only it is much, much, much closer to the Calvinistic side.

:argh: we don't deny God's sovereignty.

Clavies often think we do, but we really don't.

[Sheepdog]

it does seem to me that from a strictly logical standpoint, if an individual subscribes to Unconditional Election, he ought to subscribe to all the other points. If God unconditionally chooses which individuals are save and which are not, then salvific grace is irresistable (how can you resist if God unconditionally elected you?). then Limited Atonement and Perseverence of the Saints follows since it makes no sense that Jesus would die for people who could never be saved, nor does it that God will let one of his unconditionally elected followers fall away. and of course, Total Depravity is necessary to Unconditional Election, because as far as i understand it, U assumes that there is no salvation outside of election (the negation of T implies the possibility of being saved without Gods help).

interestingly, you can start from Irresistable Grace and come out with a similar conclusion.

... of course, that doesn't stop some from trying to be 3/4-pointers.

[Calvinist4Him]

:argh: we don't deny God's sovereignty.

Clavies often think we do, but we really don't.

At least not all of you, I know, because I was once one of you. :teeth: I would like to see a swing in Calvinist thought in which more Calvinists acknowledge the "allowances" of God. Even though Yahweh allows satan to tempt and test His people to a certain extent, Yahweh remains sovereign over all of creation.

However, I think what certain Calvinists are trying to point out, is a conflict between God's sovereignty and what many an Arminian calls "free will". The charge is that either God is sovereign or man is sovereign, but I think the charge does not hold, and the truth is somewhere inbetween. If I were a hard determinist, and viewed sovereignity and freedom as a conflict, I might pursue that point, but as a soft determinist, I see no conflict in God being sovereign, and for Him to sovereignly allow, especially pertaining to the POE. Surely we would all agree that God could crush Satan at any time of His choosing? :eh:

[GoBahnsen]

Hey, good to see some of the regulars in here. I really am glad you guys are helping out with your input.

The way I see it is, that if pressed, many 3 or 4 pointers might find that they don't really hold to Calvinism at all. For example, many a Calvary Chapel type of Christian will say, "I agree with Calvinistic Total Depravity, I just don't agree with limited atonement."

Now, they say this because they know it's good to affirm man's evil nature. To agree that man is really bad. "Total depravity, yeah man...right on!!"

So as a Calvinist, I press them a little, and lo and behold, they don't agree that man is so fallen that unless God monergistically regenerates him, he can't even decide for Christ. Ah!..., they really hold to the Arminian view that man is really sick, but not spiritually dead.

This is what I'm talking about in my OP.

Another example: "yeah, I believe in Calvinism...like in predestination. God presdestines us to be saved." So I press a little, and lo and behold, God elected them because He knew about their choice in advance! Arminian conditional election.

I just think there is a lot of confusion out there. Ignorance if you will. It seems to stick around and never quite goes away. Such is life.

[Calvinist4Him]

Hey, good to see some of the regulars in here. I really am glad you guys are helping out with your input.

I don't consider myself to be a regular, but thanks. :smile:

The way I see it is, that if pressed, many 3 or 4 pointers might find that they don't really hold to Calvinism at all. For example, many a Calvary Chapel type of Christian will say, "I agree with Calvinistic Total Depravity, I just don't agree with limited atonement."

True, but then again, many Christians are ignorant of the Scriptures. I am about as guilty as anyone for allowing dust to collect on my Bibles...even the leather ones with guilded gold edges. Not only is it helpful to have a working knowledge of the Scriptures, but also theological terminology and definitions. As much as I've learned, I still consider myself to be an ignorant man learning...and as I get older I find it necessary to re-learn! :lol: But...umm...to more directly address your point...limited or particlular atonement in all of it's completeness is probably the most difficult point to accept or come to terms with. I think most of us would like to think that everyone has a chance, an opportunity to receive Christ, that given the right words on the right day at the right moment they would take that step of faith by their own choosing into the arms of God. Man, something just doesn't seem fair about limited atonement...at least not until one realizes that it's by grace that anybody is saved at all.

Now, they say this because they know it's good to affirm man's evil nature. To agree that man is really bad. "Total depravity, yeah man...right on!!"

So as a Calvinist, I press them a little, and lo and behold, they don't agree that man is so fallen that unless God monergistically regenerates him, he can't even decide for Christ. Ah!..., they really hold to the Arminian view that man is really sick, but not spiritually dead.

This is what I'm talking about in my OP.

i think the reason there are not more Calvinists, is because of strawmen, and ambiguity of terms. What does TOTAL depravity mean? That human beings cannot do anything "good"? Now think for just a moment about all the charity work done in the name of humanism. I really can't say they're doing "bad", that just doesn't make any sense. However, apart from the grace of God in Jesus Christ, nobody is justified in their works, nobody can please God. I think the best way to look at total depravity, is to acknowledge that we are all born spiritually dead to God, and that apart from the grace of God in Jesus Christ, we cannot please God. In other words, just because one can do "good" does not mean they are spiritually alive, all that means is that they have knowledge of good and evil, and choose to do what is good in the eyes of men. When God regenerates a person, a person receives the gift of the Holy Spirit, and is made spiritually alive to God. In summary, I do not believe that a person can regnerate theirself by their own will, but I do believe that God knows the heart and mind of a repentant person, and a contrite heart He will not despise.

Another example: "yeah, I believe in Calvinism...like in predestination. God presdestines us to be saved." So I press a little, and lo and behold, God elected them because He knew about their choice in advance! Arminian conditional election.

This may sound weird, but an argument for election swayed me into Calvinism. I believe election is based soley on the grace of God. However, that does not necessarily entail that human beings do not have a role or have not been given (by God) freedom to choose. What I mean, is that I'm saved by grace, and not by anything I've said or done. God called me to Him before I responded and He enabled me to come to Him. My responding to the grace of God didn't save me, God saved me, and salvation belongs to Him and Him alone. The best part about reformed theology, is at the heart of reformed theolgoy is the grace of God.

I just think there is a lot of confusion out there. Ignorance if you will. It seems to stick around and never quite goes away. Such is life.

To be fair, theology can be extremely confusing and frustrating. There are days when I'm probably more of an Arminian in my thinking than a Calvinist. It's tough to undo years of thinking in a certain way overnight, ya know?

[GoBahnsen]

Moved from another the Allan McNabb Thread, because it fits better here.
95% of what DTS turns out are Calvinists as a general rule, though not reformed Calvies as it is a solid dispensational school; I am also quite comfortable as an Acts 2 dispensationalist, although I am interested in reading some covenant and/or reformed theologians, as I always like pressing myself on issues. You see Todd, this really puzzles me to hear you say this. It's like we have a different definition of Calvinism. I recall a while back when one of Tweb's own members "Arminian" was all up in arms because he thought I was mis-representing Arminianism.

I pressed him to show me where I was wrong and he just faded away, never dealing with it. Leaving me to really scratch my head, because he is a very smart man (or so I thought). So now, I am curious about your statement.

Take Norman Geisler, I don't don't consider him a Calvinist. He seems to me to be an Arminian dressed in Calvinistic garb. Or a confused Calvinist? Now I realize that not all Calvinists are classically Reformed, but to be a Calvinist you must hold to the five points at a minimum. At least that's what I think.

Another example is David Hocking. Some people say he is a Calvinist. And granted, sometimes he will take a more Calvinistic position on a verse often used for an Arminian proof text; but the very fact that he can survive in the Calvary Chapel system, shows that he is not a full Calvinist.

In fact, I think he might cave in if pressed for a deeper definition of what he believes about the five points. I think he might find that he is an Arminian or a confused Calvinist.

This really should be in my 3 or 4 point Calvinism thread. I'm going to copy this and move it there, if you don't mind.

[lee_merrill]

Hi Gobahnsen,

Well, if I may say so, you are apparently hesitating on the "I" in TULIP. So let him who is without stones cast out the first sin... :smile:

Blessings,
Lee

[Berean Todd]

You see Todd, this really puzzles me to hear you say this. It's like we have a different definition of Calvinism. I recall a while back when one of Tweb's own members "Arminian" was all up in arms because he thought I was mis-representing Arminianism.

I pressed him to show me where I was wrong and he just faded away, never dealing with it. Leaving me to really scratch my head, because he is a very smart man (or so I thought). So now, I am curious about your statement.

Take Norman Geisler, I don't don't consider him a Calvinist. He seems to me to be an Arminian dressed in Calvinistic garb. Or a confused Calvinist? Now I realize that not all Calvinists are classically Reformed, but to be a Calvinist you must hold to the five points at a minimum. At least that's what I think.

Another example is David Hocking. Some people say he is a Calvinist. And granted, sometimes he will take a more Calvinistic position on a verse often used for an Arminian proof text; but the very fact that he can survive in the Calvary Chapel system, shows that he is not a full Calvinist.
I'm not sure what of this has to do with my mention of my school. Sure, Geisler got some of his schooling at DTS, but he is not generally considered a "DTS guy". DTS has a rich history of calvinists, from it's founder LS Chafer to the many who followed him, most or many of the big faces of DTS are Calvinists, and most of the current students they turn out come out as dispensational calvinists. Dispensationalism and calvinism are perfectly compatible, if that was what you were getting at. Dispensationalism really has nothing to do with the 5 points of Calvinism at all, they deal with different aspects of theology.

Perhaps you could just clarify what you are puzzled about, so that I may address it.

[GoBahnsen]

I'm not sure what of this has to do with my mention of my school. Sure, Geisler got some of his schooling at DTS, but he is not generally considered a "DTS guy". DTS has a rich history of calvinists, from it's founder LS Chafer to the many who followed him, most or many of the big faces of DTS are Calvinists, and most of the current students they turn out come out as dispensational calvinists. Dispensationalism and calvinism are perfectly compatible, if that was what you were getting at. Dispensationalism really has nothing to do with the 5 points of Calvinism at all, they deal with different aspects of theology.

Perhaps you could just clarify what you are puzzled about, so that I may address it.Ok, let me put it this way. My professor at the School of Ministry, Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, was a man named Carl Westerlund (still there, just had a light hearted e-mail exchange). He is out of DTS and if I am going to press him about Calvinism, he is going to deny all five points except P. But, I'm willing to venture that if he really thought about it, he would waffel on that one too.

I can only guess though, because he invites me to talk with him, but he never has the time. In fact Calvary Chapel's official response to the debate (via Chuck Smith's short pamphlet), is to throw Scripture at it, without explaining what they think the verses mean.

Such is CC and so much of modern Christianity. Sometimes Halleluja...sometimes praise the Lord...sometimes gently singing...Our voice in one accord.

I think it was Lee Merrill who just challenged me on not dealing with "i" in tulip. Ok, let's press it a little. Non Calvinistic (NC's) folks will say that God is trying to save everyone. He desires all to come to repentance, etc. So that if God were to deal with a person in a Calvinistic setting, God stops being this "gentleman" He is taught by the NC's to be.

God has got to "woo" the sinner like a man for a bride. No place for God to break into the burning building and drag the smoke inhalated dead person to safety and bring them back to life.

No, the bride "to be" can take it or leave it. Now, you can find that upon a cursory reading of many texts, no question. But you can't square it with John 6 and other places.

In fact, I will admit, the Bible reads more naturally like an Arminian document (especially when you're taught it that way from every popular teacher). It is only after you slow down and begin to realize (by grace) that it isn't the Arminian book you thought it was.

[GoBahnsen]

I[QUOTE] don't consider myself to be a regular, but thanks. :smile: You're a regular. You're a Mod for crying out loud.


True, but then again, many Christians are ignorant of the Scriptures. I am about as guilty as anyone for allowing dust to collect on my Bibles...even the leather ones with guilded gold edges. Not only is it helpful to have a working knowledge of the Scriptures, but also theological terminology and definitions. As much as I've learned, I still consider myself to be an ignorant man learning...and as I get older I find it necessary to re-learn! :lol: That's ok A4Him and I appreciate your candor. It smacks of humility and that's always a good sign.


But...umm...to more directly address your point...limited or particlular atonement in all of it's completeness is probably the most difficult point to accept or come to terms with. I think most of us would like to think that everyone has a chance, an opportunity to receive Christ, that given the right words on the right day at the right moment they would take that step of faith by their own choosing into the arms of God. Man, something just doesn't seem fair about limited atonement...at least not until one realizes that it's by grace that anybody is saved at all.
I hear ya. You know what I think is a really big problem? Those who have never heard the gospel. I mean think about it, according to unlimited atonement, Jesus suffered and died in the place of every sinner... ever to have lived. Paid in full. God's wrath propitiated. His holiness satisfied toward all humans.

There is only one thing men must do. One thing men must pull out of their back pocket. The table is spread. Their name tag is in front of their plate. God is waiting. There is no debt, it's been paid. God isn't angry with sinners. He loves everyone with an infinite ocean of love. He is trying to get everyone's attention. Just one thing missing.

Just one! It's all there...waiting. A bloody Savior, a loving Heavenly Father (no mother, sorry LDS folks). You can't earn it. You can't buy it. God has done it all! Except one thing. One thing the sinner has to come up with. Just one thing. The key to it all. God has done His part. He has done all He can do. Angels wait for the sinner to turn the key that unlocks all of this bounty and riches.

But if you haven't heard about it, how will you ever produce the key that supposedly all people have. I mean here you are born in India to Hindu Parents and your Hindu heritage goes back hundreds of generations. Jesus has paid for your sins. All of them (unlimited atonement now) and the only thing that is keeping you, a Hindu from long history of Hindu's, is just one thing.

You can be found in Christ, a joint heir with Christ. God loves you! (Mr. Hindu) He waits with a Father's open arms. He begs, He pleads. His Son died in your stead. Just do the one thing that you gotta do to make this deal go through. Just come up with it. One little thing!

But he can't. He doesn't even know about it. What thing? He has never heard of Jesus or the Bible, let alone does he know about the one thing he has to do to make Christ's death effective. But it is all there waiting...IF he only knew.

So he dies one day. Actually it was a nice Hindu day really. He had a full bowl of rice, made special offers of sacrifice to demon gods and departed out of this earth without all that belonged to him in Christ. It was his, if he only knew it (Arminian Theology). There for the taking. Paid in full. God's love actively hoping upon hope that he might reach out and take it, even though he didn't know it was there.

But now he is dead and even God knows that there is no more hope for this one that He loved with an everlasting love. If only he could have turned the key with the one thing that so many Americans have used. If only he had pulled out THE FAITH KEY! He could have gone home with everything that was behind door number three!

Yes folks, we all have the key, if we will but bring it out and use it.

I don't think so...but then I'm just a stupid Calvinist who believes that God is saving all those He knew He would. He doesn't lose one, no not one.

[Berean Todd]

Ok, let me put it this way. My professor at the School of Ministry, Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, was a man named Carl Westerlund (still there, just had a light hearted e-mail exchange). He is out of DTS and if I am going to press him about Calvinism, he is going to deny all five points except P. But, I'm willing to venture that if he really thought about it, he would waffel on that one too.

Well, don't call it an arminian school just because of one experience ... I might have overstated it's leaning to Calvinism, but the majority of graduates and proffessors are Calvinists, and the majority of those who aren't, are like myself and claim mild Calvinism. You may call me an arminian but there is not an arminian around who would think me to be one, and I certainly loathe the title.

[GoBahnsen]

Well, don't call it an arminian school just because of one experience ... I might have overstated it's leaning to Calvinism, but the majority of graduates and proffessors are Calvinists, and the majority of those who aren't, are like myself and claim mild Calvinism. You may call me an arminian but there is not an arminian around who would think me to be one, and I certainly loathe the title.Well Todd I'm not trying to label you as much as I'm trying to figure out what's going on in the Church. Like I said, I thought I knew what a Calvinist was and an Arminian. I thought it was simple, having to do with the 5 points first brought up by the Remonstrants and then dealt with officially at Dordt.

But I guess there is a lot of hybrid stuff going on these days. Calvary Chapel is like that, but I think it has more to do with being inconsistent than anything else. And when push comes to shove CC is mostly a free willing, God loves everyone, He wishes the world wasn't so bad, but He's trying---Arminian based belief Church.

I love their hearts, but it's for me hard to fellowship with those who just quote verses and think there is power in what ever kind of Christian stew that get's cooked up. I believe true Christian strength comes with the truth as it really is, not someone's imagination of what it is. I'm in the process of trying to get rid of my own errors. Cause you know I have em.

Trying to get to the bottom of these debates can be useful, as it helps to solidify one's own beliefs. That's always good. The less confused we are, the more confidently we approach the throne of grace. Amen?

So I'm not ragging on you Todd, nor do I want to convert you to full Calvinism, but I do like to air things out. If you become a full blown Calvinist, we could probably have a party or something. :hehe:

[Kenny]

Personally, I think someone can not believe in limited atonement and properly refer to themselves as a four point Calvinist (she's definitely not an Arminian!), although I would argue that, ultimately, such a person is not being logically consistent (at least if she holds to a substitutionary view of atonement) or she does not understand what the doctrine really entails, and would believe it if she heard a proper articulation of it.

I'm not so sure about the other points though.

Like I said before, I think irresistible grace is absolutely essential and irresistible grace is tied in closely with unconditional election, so I think that is essential as well.

It would be odd to find a Calvinist who did not believe in total depravity (properly understood – "pervasive" depravity is a more communicative way to express it, imho). But maybe someone could believe, as Aquinas did, that there are certain faculties above the will (such as "Reason") which were not subject to the fall, but because the will is fallen we are still incapable of freely turning to God unless God irresistibly draws us.

Perseverance of the saints is another potentially shaky area. Sure, if unconditional election is true, then those individuals who have been truly elected will never fall away, but, perhaps one might hold, as Augustine did, that we can have no knowledge of or any assurance pertaining to (sans a special divine revelation) who is and is not elect in this life, and that some who are not truly elect may participate in the full benefits of being a Christian for a time in this life but then fall away later on.

I think it is questionable whether or not such views are properly labeled "Calvinism," and a person who holds them should probably, for the sake of accurate representation, qualify her Calvinism in some way (but not in the Norman Geisler way – labeling classical Arminians as "moderate Calvinists" and historic Calvinists as "hyper Calvinists" :grr:).

But the labeling qualifications get confusing. I do hold to all five points, for example, but I often refer to myself as a "low Calvinist," since I am an infralapsarian Calvinist and not a supralapsarian, and my Calvinism is primarily motivated by the desire to have a grace centered soteriology and not by a high doctrine of divine sovereignty. While my views on divine sovereignty are more robust than those of the average Arminian, they are probably not as robust as many Calvinists would like.

Anyway, a few more ramblings on my part.

In Christ,
Kenny

[GoBahnsen]

Personally, I think someone can not believe in limited atonement and properly refer to themselves as a four point Calvinist (she's definitely not an Arminian!), although I would argue that, ultimately, such a person is not being logically consistent (at least if she holds to a substitutionary view of atonement) or she does not understand what the doctrine really entails, and would believe it if she heard a proper articulation of it.

I'm not so sure about the other points though.

Like I said before, I think irresistible grace is absolutely essential and irresistible grace is tied in closely with unconditional election, so I think that is essential as well.

It would be odd to find a Calvinist who did not believe in total depravity (properly understood – "pervasive" depravity is a more communicative way to express it, imho). But maybe someone could believe, as Aquinas did, that there are certain faculties above the will (such as "Reason") which were not subject to the fall, but because the will is fallen we are still incapable of freely turning to God unless God irresistibly draws us.

Perseverance of the saints is another potentially shaky area. Sure, if unconditional election is true, then those individuals who have been truly elected will never fall away, but, perhaps one might hold, as Augustine did, that we can have no knowledge of or any assurance pertaining to (sans a special divine revelation) who is and is not elect in this life, and that some who are not truly elect may participate in the full benefits of being a Christian for a time in this life but then fall away later on.

I think it is questionable whether or not such views are properly labeled "Calvinism," and a person who holds them should probably, for the sake of accurate representation, qualify her Calvinism in some way (but not in the Norman Geisler way – labeling classical Arminians as "moderate Calvinists" and historic Calvinists as "hyper Calvinists" :grr:).

But the labeling qualifications get confusing. I do hold to all five points, for example, but I often refer to myself as a "low Calvinist," since I am an infralapsarian Calvinist and not a supralapsarian, and my Calvinism is primarily motivated by the desire to have a grace centered soteriology and not by a high doctrine of divine sovereignty. While my views on divine sovereignty are more robust than those of the average Arminian, they are probably not as robust as many Calvinists would like.

Anyway, a few more ramblings on my part.

In Christ,
KennyI really like your ramblings Kenny. They resonate with my Calvinistic heart. I look forward to the day I feel like I can put this baby to rest and get on with other things.

I remember when I was teaching a class at Calvary Chapel and I was falling hard for Finney's Pelagianism right then. The class was getting a full dose of it from me, with chalk board diagrams and quotes from Finney. I still recall in the Q & A time, some guy in the back row asking about Calvinism and Arminianism, and I just put on this face like I knew what that was all about. Then I quickly dismissed the class.

I left disturbed at my total ignorance of one of the biggest debates in Church history.

[rhutchin]

...
The way I see it is, that if pressed, many 3 or 4 pointers might find that they don't really hold to Calvinism at all. For example, many a Calvary Chapel type of Christian will say, "I agree with Calvinistic Total Depravity, I just don't agree with limited atonement."

Now, they say this because they know it's good to affirm man's evil nature. To agree that man is really bad. "Total depravity, yeah man...right on!!"


Something else to try.

When someone says that they do not believe in limited atonement, you then ask (in an arminian frame), "Do you mean that you do not believe that only a limited number of people will choose to be saved (i.e., Are you an Universalist)?"

If they respond that they do indeed believe (as the Arminians) that only a limtied number of people will choose to be saved, then you ask, "Was it necessary for Christ to die for those that God knew would not accept Christ and if so why?"

The Arminian should say something like, at least God gave them a chance. You then ask, "Was it fair for God to let a person decide not to accept Christ without intervening to change that outcome?"

If they say, Yes, then you explain that they believe in a limited atonement. It is limited because God knew beforehand that some would not accept Christ and because God chose not to intervene to change that outcome. [This, of course, is why OVT wants to deny God knowledge of the future.]

The Calvinist claims that God knew that some would reject Christ (they say all did so) but that God intervened to save some of them. Either way it is God who refuses to save all, He is the author of limited atonement.

[GoBahnsen]

Something else to try.

When someone says that they do not believe in limited atonement, you then ask (in an arminian frame), "Do you mean that you do not believe that only a limited number of people will choose to be saved (i.e., Are you an Universalist)?"

If they respond that they do indeed believe (as the Arminians) that only a limtied number of people will choose to be saved, then you ask, "Was it necessary for Christ to die for those that God knew would not accept Christ and if so why?"

The Arminian should say something like, at least God gave them a chance. You then ask, "Was it fair for God to let a person decide not to accept Christ without intervening to change that outcome?"

If they say, Yes, then you explain that they believe in a limited atonement. It is limited because God knew beforehand that some would not accept Christ and because God chose not to intervene to change that outcome. [This, of course, is why OVT wants to deny God knowledge of the future.]

The Calvinist claims that God knew that some would reject Christ (they say all did so) but that God intervened to save some of them. Either way it is God who refuses to save all, He is the author of limited atonement.Very good Rhut. It's true, only universalists really believe in universal atonement. That's why my pastor was saying to me the other day, that "saved" evangelical Arminians are more closely related to just being confused Calvinists.

[Ormly]

Doesn't Calvinism stand or fall on all 5 points? If you deny one, how do you surgically remove it from the others? They are all connected. One supports the other.

Yet many Christians today try to hang in between, saying they are moderate Calvinists or Calminians. Can it be done? I'm not set in concrete on this one, but my suspicion is that... if a partial Calvinist was really pressed, he/she would be found to side with all 5 points of the Remonstrants. Or a four point Calvinist, when pressed, might just realize that they are in fact a 5 pointer afterall.

Yet in all practicality of his/ her practice as a Christian, most evangelical Arminians might really be just confused Calvinists. What do you all think?
Are you really just confused Calvinists or do you think the truth lies somewhere between the two? Or that Calvinism is just plain wrong?
Is this what Christ is all about --- Calvinism?? --- Arminianism? Who cares ---Get on with becoming.

:smile:

[GoBahnsen]

Is this what Christ is all about --- Calvinism?? --- Arminianism? Who cares ---Get on with becoming.

:smile:Yes Orm, it's all about John Calvin. You didn't know about his fulfillment of the OT prophecies? He is Elijah. These are the last days. Arminius is his after-runner. They must fight for 3 and a half years and in the midst of their fight one like a GoBahnsen will arise. He shall make war with wormwood (ormly in Hebrew) and these shall do battle until the dragon (Jaltus) shall appear and make a covenant with the many.

In the midst of that covenant shall arise Calvin again, healed from his deadly wound and he shall make war against the saints, the members of Tweb. This shall go on for three and half more years until wormwood (ormly in Hebrew) shall cause all threads on Tweb to become bitter. And the stars shall fall and Tweb shall be rent in two.

After this shall GoBahnsen arise with Calvin at his right hand and he shall send forth trout13 to gather all of the elect from the four corners of Tweb. And they shall make war.

You know what...I'm getting hungry...can we hold this thought until I get back from the fridge, because Calvin and Arminius do play a part in this at the end. Thanks Orm.

[Calvinist4Him]

Yes Orm, it's all about John Calvin. You didn't know about his fulfillment of the OT prophecies? He is Elijah. These are the last days. Arminius is his after-runner. They must fight for 3 and a half years and in the midst of their fight one like a GoBahnsen will arise. He shall make war with wormwood (ormly in Hebrew) and these shall do battle until the dragon (Jaltus) shall appear and make a covenant with the many.

In the midst of that covenant shall arise Calvin again, healed from his deadly wound and he shall make war against the saints, the members of Tweb. This shall go on for three and half more years until wormwood (ormly in Hebrew) shall cause all threads on Tweb to become bitter. And the stars shall fall and Tweb shall be rent in two.

After this shall GoBahnsen arise with Calvin at his right hand and he shall send forth trout13 to gather all of the elect from the four corners of Tweb. And they shall make war.

You know what...I'm getting hungry...can we hold this thought until I get back from the fridge, because Calvin and Arminius do play a part in this at the end. Thanks Orm.

:lol:

[GoBahnsen]

:lol::lol: :teeth: :tongue: :highfive: :hehe: :ale: :broccoli: :sos: :yummy: :baby: