Question about who is a Calvinist

[Phat8594]

I would tend to disagree, it does seem the idea of sovereignty is rather different in Calvinism. I agree that all agree that God is sovereign, though. But what is meant by that has important differences:

"Only two alternatives are possible: God must either rule, or be ruled; sway, or, be swayed; accomplish his own will, or be thwarted by his creatures. Accepting the fact that he is the 'Most High', the only Potentate and King of kings, vested with perfect wisdom and illimitable power, and the conclusion is irresistible that he must be God in fact, as well as in name." (A W. Pink)

But see, here is what sovereign means:

Dictionary.com:

having supreme rank, power, or authority.

it does not mean 'acting in a certain way'. It has do with the 'quality/trait of', not the action taken from that quality/trait.

So all Christians would agree that God is the one that rules, and that God is sovereign. After all sovereignty has to do with being the ultimate authority.

Now, again, where the difference lies is in how God uses His authority, and in how He rules.

And this is where so many people get mixed up; people conflate how sovereignty is excercised with sovereignty itself.
Whether God uses irresistable grace or not...He is still sovereign in Salvation.

[lee_merrill]

But see, here is what sovereign means...

But a dictionary definition may not correspond well to what theologians mean.

Let's check a Bible Dictionary!

"Sovereignty", dictionary.com

Sovereignty definition: of God, his absolute right to do all things according to his own good pleasure (Dan. 4:25, 35; Rom. 9:15-23; 1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 4:11).

© source where applicable

I agree that sovereignty doesn't refer to actions per se, by the way.

Now, again, where the difference lies is in how God uses His authority, and in how He rules.

So maybe we're saying the same thing, using different terms.

Whether God uses irresistable grace or not...He is still sovereign in Salvation.

And that would be where sovereignty to a Calvinist means more that it does to Arminians! God is sovereign over the human will in a way Arminians would find unacceptable.

Blessings,
Lee

[Pilgrim]

So the Five Points of Dort are what most people think of as "Calvinism" today,

Fallacy of the majority. Just because most people think that's what it is doesn't make them right by virtue of their numbers. That's all I'm saying. In my opinion we're talking about a misunderstanding of what Calvin taught not about what he actually taught.

[RBerman]

Fallacy of the majority. Just because most people think that's what it is doesn't make them right by virtue of their numbers. That's all I'm saying. In my opinion we're talking about a misunderstanding of what Calvin taught not about what he actually taught.

For historical reasons, I don't equate "Calvinism" with "what Calvin taught." It's not a fallacy to observe how terms are actually used today; we expect the meanings of terms to change over time. "Evangelical" had a very different set of connotations in the late 19th Century, for instance. It's fine to say what "Calvinism" would have meant in Calvin's day, but that doesn't require it to mean the same thing today. That would be an etymological fallacy.

[siliconwafer]

The problem is that both the Arminian and the Calvinist affirm God's sovereignty in general and in salvation.

The distinction comes in how God excercises that sovereignty. ...not whether or not God is sovereign.


In other words, although sovereignty is part of the Calvinist emphasis, it is not what defines it in a way that makes it distinctive from other soteriological theologies.

According to Calvinism, God ordains whatsoever comes to pass. In other words, all events that happen are predestined to happen by God. Arminianism denies this.

[Phat8594]

And that would be where sovereignty to a Calvinist means more that it does to Arminians! God is sovereign over the human will in a way Arminians would find unacceptable.

But do you see what you just did? You just conflated how God uses His sovereignty with the definition of sovereignty itself.

We agree that God has the right to do whatever He wants...but what He actually does is where the difference lies. One says irresistable grace and the other says resistable grace. In both sets of theology God is sovereign over ALL things. The difference is in HOW he uses that sovereignty.

The problem with where you argument seems to be going is this:

It seems to be saying that God is not sovereign over salvation and the will of man unless He uses irresistable grace.

The problem with this type of thinking is that it basically says that if man can choose salvation, without irresistable grace, then God is not sovereign. Unfortuntately I have heard this way too often....

But I digress....the reason this is a problem is that it makes God's sovereignty dependent on the will of man. If in fact this sovereignty is dependent on the will of man...then by definition, it can not be defined as sovereignty. The fact that God is sovereign means that He has ultimate authority, and the greatest of authorities. Therefore this authority is dependent only on God...not on His creation.


Whether man's will is free or not...and whether God uses irresistable grace or not..God is still sovereign....His sovereignty does not, and can not rest on the will of man; it rests solely within Himself.

[Phat8594]

Fallacy of the majority. Just because most people think that's what it is doesn't make them right by virtue of their numbers. That's all I'm saying. In my opinion we're talking about a misunderstanding of what Calvin taught not about what he actually taught.

RB is right. This is not a 'Fallacy of the majority.' Words are defined by their semantic use in a language at the time of their use....not by their historical meaning.

To claim that Calvinism does not essentially entail the 5 points, because of what it may have meant (or should mean) based on history (and despite how people use it when it is actually used) is actually a fallacy in and of itself....granted I forget what the formal name for the fallacy is (time to pull out so DA Carson).

To do as such would be like me claiming that the word "gay" does not mean 'homosexual', but rather It means 'happy'. How the current culture actually uses the word is no matter, because historically 'gay' meant 'happy'.

Of course, I think it is clear that this type of thinking is fallacious

Hopefully that makes sense.

[Phat8594]

According to Calvinism, God ordains whatsoever comes to pass. In other words, all events that happen are predestined to happen by God. Arminianism denies this

It all depends on what you mean by 'ordain':

If by ordain you mean that God actively brings about every thing that happens...then you are correct, Arminians deny this.

If by ordain you mean that God allows (and knows perfectly) all that happens, then you would be incorrect. Arminians affirm this.


Believe it or not, I have found that the definition varies widely amongst Calvinists.

[Dee Dee Warren]

To answer the OP, you can be a Calvinist and reject covenant theology (though I would think it would be somewhat inconsistent in your hermeneutic to do so outright) and absolutely can deny infant baptists. Particular Baptists (Reformed Baptists) have been around a long time, and one of the oldest Reformed confessions is a Baptist one.

But then again, one person on the Interwebz called me a Calvinist retard therefore I must be one.

[hedrick]

I agree with RBerman on this. I'm part of the liberal branch of the Reformed tradition. I admire the Institutes, and I think Calvin was a great Biblical exegete. i use both the Institutes and his commentaries regularly. So in the historical sense I'm a liberal Calvinist.

But RBerman is right that most people understand the term to refer to the 5 points, even though it's not so clear that Calvin would even have agreed with all of them.

On the 5 points in theory I'm either 4 or 5. It's just that using the 5 points seems somehow to be emphasizing things that Scripture didn't. I certainly accept that God in his grace goes before us, and that we should thank him for our faith. I disagree with any suggestion that God just sets up alternatives and leaves us to pick one or the other. Given a choice of the classic positions I guess I'm Calvinist. I just find the 5 points pretty far from what the Nt would use as a summary of soteriology.

[Phat8594]

Given a choice of the classic positions I guess I'm Calvinist. I just find the 5 points pretty far from what the Nt would use as a summary of soteriology.

I'll admit, I find your post somewhat confusing.

On one hand you say that the 5 points are pretty far from what the NT would use as a summary of soteriology...but then at the same time you say you hold to them.

Ironically it was the Arminians who essentially came up with the five points to show where the disagreement lies. The Arminians would also agree that the 5 points emphasize things that scripture does not...essentially that was the point of the disagreement...that these five points seem to go beyond the scope of scripture. And this is why your post is somewhat confusing to me: you hold to the one of the classical Arminian reasons for the rejection of those five points....yet you hold to the five points.

But, honeslty, I would love to hear more about your reasoning...

[Phat8594]

While thinking about this thread, I thought I would include the following resource to hopefully clear up some of the actual differences that Arminians hold to:

http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=A...t_Even_Know_It


Its a survey called: "Are you an Arminian and Don't Even Know It"

Often times people will mistakenly call themselves an Arminian or Calvinist, based on a misunderstanding of the other camp's doctrine. So needless to say, I hope this is helpful.

[Pilgrim]

For historical reasons, I don't equate "Calvinism" with "what Calvin taught." It's not a fallacy to observe how terms are actually used today; we expect the meanings of terms to change over time. "Evangelical" had a very different set of connotations in the late 19th Century, for instance. It's fine to say what "Calvinism" would have meant in Calvin's day, but that doesn't require it to mean the same thing today. That would be an etymological fallacy.

So you're ok with defining Christianity by its worst elements since that's how people understand it's history?

[RBerman]

So you're ok with defining Christianity by its worst elements since that's how people understand it's history?

That's not how I'd characterize my previous posts. Language is a medium of communication. If you say, "I am a Calvinist," meaning but not articulating, "I hold to all of Calvin's teachings and practices, in the same proportions and emphases that Calvin did," then you are asking for misunderstanding. If however you say, "I am a Calvinist in the sense that..." then the likelihood of being misunderstood is much lower.

[Pilgrim]

that's fair enough.