Calvinism

[Will_C_Drotar]

Are there any other Calvinists on this board?

I'm a pretrib, 5 point Calvinist, dispensationalist. I need people to add to my buddy list. Just think it would be cool to see who our allies are on this thread.

TTYL Jesus loves you!

:ddw: Man I love this thing!

[GrayPilgrim]

Welcome to TWEB! :yipee:

As a five pointer, pretrib individual I would like to point out to you that your favorite smilie is the personal smilie of DDW who is a partial preterist who flirts with Molinism and is defintely not a Calvinst!

:juggle: :juggle:

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 03:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83694#post83694)
GrayPilgrim:

Welcome to TWEB! :yipee:

As a five pointer, pretrib individual I would like to point out to you that your favorite smilie is the personal smilie of DDW who is a partial preterist who flirts with Molinism and is defintely not a Calvinst!

:juggle: :juggle:

Predestinarian

Blake

[joelkaki]

Are there any other Calvinists on this board?

I'm a pretrib, 5 point Calvinist, dispensationalist. I need people to add to my buddy list. Just think it would be cool to see who our allies are on this thread.

TTYL Jesus loves you!

Man I love this thing!

I am a 5 point Calvinist, but most definitely not a dispy or pretribber. Interesting phrase for a Calvinist.

Joel

[GrayPilgrim]

I tend to say I have a Reformed Soteriology because that is generally what I hold, I don't tend to hold to the ecclesiology or other parts of "Calvinsim"

GP

[Gavin]

I am a full-steam Calvinist but not dispy, and I am not sure I really know enough eschatology to say one way or the other on pretrib. Thats something I need/want to start studying.

Welcome to the forums!

[Solly]

I'm here:

My latest contributions (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3745&perpage=16&pagenumber=1)

Me:
Gospel Standard Strict Baptist. High Calvinistic Strict communion, Amillennial Baptists.
My church (http://www.findachurch.co.uk/churches/sp/sp76/providence/index.html) Founded 1791, this is the third building.
My Denomination (http://www.gospelstandard.com) The nearest we have to a web page, as we are actually an association, without a head office etc.
The Faith (http://www.the-faith.org.uk/index.html) Documents relating to our denominational history and doctrinal stand.
J C Philpot (http://grace-for-today.com/phil.htm) One of our former Chief Brethren, whose sermons are still in print.

[Arminian]

I am a recovering Calvinist. :yipee:

[Solly]

Today @ 08:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83898#post83898)
Arminian:

I am a recovering Calvinist. :yipee:

Get well soon; these Arminian fevers pass eventually :rofl:

[Arminian]

:yipee:

[Solly]

Klyne?

Klyne M Snodgrass?

Questions in the Debate About Election

"Numerous questions remain about election, and Christians will no doubt disagree on the answers. Can election be lost? Is it possible to have once been in Christ and then be out of him? But this text (and most others) do not treat our questions and suggest they may be misguided. Paul was more interested in praising God for his grace. While granting an element of mystery in the subject of election, certain points must be emphasized.
(1) Election is God's grace in action.
(2) God chose Abraham and then Israel for a task -- to bless all the nations of the earth (Genesis 12:3).
(3) Jesus took on the task of Israel as God's Elect One.
(4) People are elect in Christ for relation to God.
(5) While God chooses, people still have choice and are responsible for their decisions.
(6) Election does demonstrate God's favor, which can be a strong support in a time of difficulty, but it is never to be treated as a sign of superiority.
(7) More important, election always implies responsibility. People are chosen to do something.
(8) The ultimate goal of election is the revelation of God's own character, which Ephesians expresses as the praise of his glory.


NIV Application Commentary, Ephesians

[geebob]

Are there any other Calvinists on this board?

I agree with the part of the westminster confession that says that God is not the author of sin and that issues of predestination need to be handled carefully. Do I count? :teeth:

I'm also a calvinist when it comes to the issue of foreknowledge-it is foreknown as certain because it is determined.

[Solly]

Don't listen to him, DON'T LISTEN TO HIM!! Geebob is as OVT as they come! :rofl:

[Arminian]

Solly,

Klyne M Snodgrass?

No.

While granting an element of mystery in the subject of election

Note that the above comment is one that I've refuted at every turn, when it is being discussed at a practical level.

Watch for my thread on Ephesians in the Eschatology forum, coming soon.

[geebob]

Arminian,

Note that the above comment is one that I've refuted at every turn, when it is being discussed at a practical level.

assuming that you say you refute that there is mystery in election, How do you interpret Paul's statement at the end of romans 9-11?

25Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers...
...Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
34"For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?"
35"Or who has given a gift to him
that he might be repaid?"

[Will_C_Drotar]

In order to be Calvinist you have to hold to the five beautiful points. You are Amyraldian if you hold to four (denying limited atonement). If you hold to less than four, you are not Calvinist.

I will post my chapters. Here's a rough draft:

Chapter 7: Hamartiology

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/39020.html

Chapter 9: Soteriology

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=719952#post719952post719952

And by the way, when the Greek font converted to the English on the message boards, it changed some of the words.

TTYL Jesus loves you!

[Pilgrim]

Funny, Clavin himself never made those 5 points. I am calvinist in the historical sense. That is to say I have read The Institutes (In fact used them as my systematic text for Systematic III in Seminary.) And I agree with a majority of it. I am not a Calvinist in the cultural sense in that I do not throw TULIP around as the end all be all of Calvin's theology to develop a church around.

You do realize that the 5 points were invented long afte John Calvin lived and died?

I much prefer what Clavin described as the foundation of theology he said "The foundation of all theology is the fundamental benevolence of God." In other words, God is good all the time.

realizing that Calvin went on to explain that we may be wrong on any given point of theology or may not understand all facets of God but that it didn;t matter because our ultimate comfort is in the reality of God's goodness. In other words, what ever happens, God will do the good and right thing regardless of what we thought was good and right about theology or religion or the circumstances of this life and world.

[Will_C_Drotar]

True. Calvin did not write about limited atonement specifically. There is defensive proof for all the other points.

I own a copy of Institutes, which I quoted in the chapters if you click on the links.

Do you hold to Calvin's other views? There is the virtual view of communion, paedobaptism, all this stuff. I've even heard of the "Reformed view" of the hypostatic union! It was defended in this book called "A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith". I actually do highly recommend it in defense of Calvinism.

But yes, 1618 is the year I pin the creation of the five points to. And they were IN RESPONSE TO the five points of Arminianism. WHile I do not hold Calvin's writings to the letter, he is by far my fav Reformer and has made invaluable innovative contributions to helping present Biblical theology. TTYL Jesus loves you!

PS. I recommend reading, on the second link, article II in defense of limited atonement. See what you think of it.

[Pilgrim]

Yes I do hold to Calvin's other views. I just get bugged when Calvinism is reduced to a conversation about predestination. I mean, he didn't even talk about it in his first two editions of the Institutes and when he did it was for like 8 pages out of the whole work. It seems to me that things like that were not the most important to Calvin.

What I find hard to grasp is that Calvin was so un charitable to some of his contemporaries, Socinus excluded.

[Will_C_Drotar]

That is very true. Actually, I think it was like 30 pages that covered all four points, but yeah, it's like 3/4 the way through.

To my memory, he had more writing on the topic of prayer than he did on Calvinism!

But, you and I can most likely agree, his most important contribution was BY FAR soteriologically. Words cannot begin to describe how much of a contribution those mere 20-30 pages made.

Did you read the intro to his book? Like the part written to the king or something? I skipped that part but I always wondered what it was about. TTYL Jesus lvoes you!

[Gavin]

solly,

Klyne Snodgrass was a guess of mine at Arminian's identity, which was apparently faulty.

However, I will henceforth affectionately refer to him as "Klyne". :teeth:

Gavin

[Arminian]

gee,

assuming that you say you refute that there is mystery in election, How do you interpret Paul's statement at the end of romans 9-11?

25Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers...

Note the last 8 words that Paul said.

[geebob]

I saw that, but later he still says, "How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!"

[Arminian]

gee,

I saw that, but later he still says, "How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

Correct. But he is saying that in light of the fact that "his ways" were not understood prior to the arrival of Christ (they were "unsearchable" for the prophets). Paul claims that this "mystery" was revealed to him (not "discovered"). Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, in part, to describe the election of the "Israel of God."

I'll be bringing this up on the Eschatology folder. However, let's look at how Paul ends his letter by addressing the issue we are talking about:

Romans 16

25Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him-- 27to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.


Paul speaks of his gospel being related to the now revealed mystery which was contained in the "phrophetic writings." The prophets did not understand how it was that God would incorporate the Gentiles into Israel. The Jews of Paul's time argued that Paul taught that God's word had failed if God's Israel was not God's elect. Paul, on the other hand agrues that they misunderstood the nature of the Israel of God. There now is no more mystery.

Not only does Paul end his book in this way, but he alludes to the same thing in the opening.


Romans 1
1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God-- 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son,

Again, Paul is describing election, but not in the the way that his opponents (or even the Calvinists) claimed.

Again, we see the issue in Romans 15:

8For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the circumcision on behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs 9so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy, as it is written:

The patriarchs did not understand how the promises of election would be fulfilled. Now we do. It is through the Israel of God. The the covenant of promise was made to Abraham and his Seed(3:16-17).

I'll address this again in the Eschatology folder in a few days.

Thanks for you challenging thoughts,

[Kenny]

I go to a church which is part of a group of churches (http://www.pdinet.org/) which describes itself as “essentially Reformed with a significant charismatic dimension.” I hold to a Calvinist soteriology and to much else of what the Reformed tradition has held to doctrinally, though there are points where I notably deviate.

I am very much opposed to dispensational theology, however (I think it is spiritually, theologically and politically destructive), and I am definitely not a pretriber. I consider my self a partial preterist amillennialist with occasional bouts of postmillennialism (but definitely not the whacked out kind promoted by groups like the Chalcedon Foudation -- I just want that to be clear).

In Christ,
Kenny

[Zagnut]

Now Jake is Klyne? I get more confused every day!!

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 03:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84759#post84759)
Arminian:

gee,



Correct. But he is saying that in light of the fact that "his ways" were not understood prior to the arrival of Christ (they were "unsearchable" for the prophets). Paul claims that this "mystery" was revealed to him (not "discovered"). Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, in part, to describe the election of the "Israel of God."

I'll be bringing this up on the Eschatology folder. However, let's look at how Paul ends his letter by addressing the issue we are talking about:

Romans 16

25Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him-- 27to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.


Paul speaks of his gospel being related to the now revealed mystery which was contained in the "phrophetic writings." The prophets did not understand how it was that God would incorporate the Gentiles into Israel. The Jews of Paul's time argued that Paul taught that God's word had failed if God's Israel was not God's elect. Paul, on the other hand agrues that they misunderstood the nature of the Israel of God. There now is no more mystery.

Not only does Paul end his book in this way, but he alludes to the same thing in the opening.


Romans 1
1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God-- 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son,

Again, Paul is describing election, but not in the the way that his opponents (or even the Calvinists) claimed.

Again, we see the issue in Romans 15:

8For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the circumcision on behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs 9so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy, as it is written:

The patriarchs did not understand how the promises of election would be fulfilled. Now we do. It is through the Israel of God. The the covenant of promise was made to Abraham and his Seed(3:16-17).

I'll address this again in the Eschatology folder in a few days.

Thanks for you challenging thoughts,

Thanks for the thoughts, Arminian! :bunny:

By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

[geebob]

:thumb: That's pretty clear. Thanks Arminian.

[Arminian]

gee,

No problem. I get so excited discussing Romans and Ephesians that I have a hard time stopping. So I'm going to post this from Ephesians 3:

1For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles--
2Surely you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, 3that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. 4In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets. 6This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.


I would have translated this differently, but, again, Paul is making the same point. This issue of "promise," being an "heir" or having an "inheritace" is covenant election terminology.

[theist]

I'm a 5-pointer. I happen to be a preterist and amillenialist though.... T-U-L-I-P man here :hi:

in HIS grip,

rustyb