|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
|
[Poll]
|
What kind of Calvinist
|
| Supralapsarian and there can be no other Calvinist |
|
| Supralapsarian but open |
|
| Infralapsarian and there can be no other Calvinist |
|
| Infralapsarian but unsure |
|
| working on being a 5 pointer |
|
| 4 pointer, cant get one of the points |
|
| reformed but ok with arminianism |
|
| I would be Calvinist if they were cool |
|
| Would be a Calvinist if that double predestination thing wasnt there |
|
| Ive never read the Institutes |
|
Total Votes : 28
|
(last vote on : 4/24/2011 6:53:34 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
|
|
Login  | |
|
What kind of Calvinist - 6/22/2010 6:47:39 PM
|
|
|
Gloryandgrace
Posts: 584
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline
|
To those Calvinist/reformed that post, lurk or just read and run; what kind of calvinist are you?
There is some different kinds among the reformed, and not all reformed are hard-shell as others
This is not an armin/calvy debate thread, if you dont like calvinism fine take it to the calvy/armin abyss thread.
If you dont like Arminianism take it to the C/A abyssal.
If none of these are you, explain.
How do you see the reformed moving? Are the reformed moving towards a moderate view of sovereignty? Or a more conservative one?
_____________________________
Isa 42:6 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles.....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What kind of Calvinist - 6/22/2010 11:44:22 PM
|
|
|
NeverCanezzer
Posts: 55
Joined: 5/13/2010
Status: offline
|
Lol - none of the above - I do like what I've read on open theism though.
Sorry if this was off topic.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What kind of Calvinist - 6/23/2010 3:53:56 PM
|
|
|
deerhunter721
Posts: 14
Joined: 6/1/2010
Status: offline
|
Here is an accurate description of what I believe, skillfully written by Dr. R.C. Sproul:
In sharp contrast to the caricature of double predestination seen in the positive-positive schema is the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. In this view predestination is double in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather we view predestination in terms of a positive-negative relationship.
In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives. Even in the case of the "hardening" of the sinners' already recalcitrant hearts, God does not, as Luther stated, "work evil in us (for hardening is working evil) by creating fresh evil in us." Luther continued:
quote:
When men hear us say that God works both good and evil in us, and that we are subject to God's working by mere passive necessity, they seem to imagine a man who is in himself good, and not evil, having an evil work wrought in him by God; for they do not sufficiently bear in mind how incessantly active God is in all His creatures, allowing none of them to keep holiday. He who would understand these matters, however, should think thus: God works evil in us (that is, by means of us) not through God's own fault, but by reason of our own defect. We being evil by nature, and God being good, when He impels us to act by His own acting upon us according to the nature of His omnipotence, good though He is in Himself, He cannot but do evil by our evil instrumentality; although, according to His wisdom, He makes good use of this evil for His own glory and for our salvation.
Thus, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate. God works regeneration monergistically but never sin. Sin falls within the category of providential concurrence.
Another significant difference between the activity of God with respect to the elect and the reprobate concerns God's justice. The decree and fulfillment of election provide mercy for the elect while the efficacy of reprobation provides justice for the reprobate. God shows mercy sovereignly and unconditionally to some, and gives justice to those passed over in election. That is to say, God grants the mercy of election to some and justice to others. No one is the victim of injustice. To fail to receive mercy is not to be treated unjustly. God is under no obligation to grant mercy to all — in fact He is under no obligation to grant mercy to any. He says, "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy" (Rom. 9). The divine prerogative to grant mercy voluntarily cannot be faulted. If God is required by some cosmic law apart from Himself to be merciful to all men, then we would have to conclude that justice demands mercy. If that is so, then mercy is no longer voluntary, but required. If mercy is required, it is no longer mercy, but justice. What God does not do is sin by visiting injustice upon the reprobate. Only by considering election and reprobation as being asymmetrical in terms of a positive-negative schema can God be exonerated from injustice......................R.C. Sproul
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What kind of Calvinist - 6/24/2010 2:52:35 AM
|
|
|
Gloryandgrace
Posts: 584
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: deerhunter721
Here is an accurate description of what I believe, skillfully written by Dr. R.C. Sproul:
In sharp contrast to the caricature of double predestination seen in the positive-positive schema is the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. In this view predestination is double in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather we view predestination in terms of a positive-negative relationship.
In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives. Even in the case of the "hardening" of the sinners' already recalcitrant hearts, God does not, as Luther stated, "work evil in us (for hardening is working evil) by creating fresh evil in us." Luther continued:
quote:
When men hear us say that God works both good and evil in us, and that we are subject to God's working by mere passive necessity, they seem to imagine a man who is in himself good, and not evil, having an evil work wrought in him by God; for they do not sufficiently bear in mind how incessantly active God is in all His creatures, allowing none of them to keep holiday. He who would understand these matters, however, should think thus: God works evil in us (that is, by means of us) not through God's own fault, but by reason of our own defect. We being evil by nature, and God being good, when He impels us to act by His own acting upon us according to the nature of His omnipotence, good though He is in Himself, He cannot but do evil by our evil instrumentality; although, according to His wisdom, He makes good use of this evil for His own glory and for our salvation.
Thus, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate. God works regeneration monergistically but never sin. Sin falls within the category of providential concurrence.
Another significant difference between the activity of God with respect to the elect and the reprobate concerns God's justice. The decree and fulfillment of election provide mercy for the elect while the efficacy of reprobation provides justice for the reprobate. God shows mercy sovereignly and unconditionally to some, and gives justice to those passed over in election. That is to say, God grants the mercy of election to some and justice to others. No one is the victim of injustice. To fail to receive mercy is not to be treated unjustly. God is under no obligation to grant mercy to all — in fact He is under no obligation to grant mercy to any. He says, "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy" (Rom. 9). The divine prerogative to grant mercy voluntarily cannot be faulted. If God is required by some cosmic law apart from Himself to be merciful to all men, then we would have to conclude that justice demands mercy. If that is so, then mercy is no longer voluntary, but required. If mercy is required, it is no longer mercy, but justice. What God does not do is sin by visiting injustice upon the reprobate. Only by considering election and reprobation as being asymmetrical in terms of a positive-negative schema can God be exonerated from injustice......................R.C. Sproul
Deerhunter: Great stuff, thanks for an excellent post on the topic. I too do not see the necessity for asymmetrical positive positive election/reprobation.
Grammatically Romans 9 in God creating vessels of wrath is passive rather than active. In this explanation Sproul makes a good case.
John
_____________________________
Isa 42:6 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles.....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What kind of Calvinist - 6/24/2010 7:53:54 AM
|
|
|
Mannamuncher
Posts: 4132
Status: offline
|
John,
I have heard/read about 6 or 7 pointers.
In the spirit of "deerhunter" I will say 10 pointer.
Heck, in this supersize world we live in, why not ?...LOL
Seriously, loved the deerhunter post, very nice bro !
Especially the part about passive and active.
This is an important truth that often is overlooked (passivity),
IMVHO, our A/W friends prefer to engage in passive-aggressive.
I wonder what the 4 pointers find difficult... guessing the "P".
Again, the TULIP is more like a bouquet with 10+ points.
Would it really be that hard to find 5 more for the A-team to dissent ?
For instance, sinless perfection sure seems to be a "Remonstrant" pov.
_____________________________
The purpose of being educated is to defend ourselves against the seductions of eloquence.......Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What kind of Calvinist - 6/24/2010 9:53:23 AM
|
|
|
tdd1975
Posts: 1501
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: offline
|
I want to know who thinks Calvinists aren't cool. I think they are some of the coolest cats around. 
_____________________________
Micah 7:8(NASB)8 Do not rejoice over me, O my enemy.
Though I fall I will rise; Though I dwell in darkness, the LORD is a light for me.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What kind of Calvinist - 6/24/2010 9:57:19 AM
|
|
|
Eutychus
Posts: 12143
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
I wonder what the 4 pointers find difficult... guessing the "P".
Most embrace "P" but cannot accept "L".
_____________________________
Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." -John 6:29
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What kind of Calvinist - 7/12/2010 12:18:31 PM
|
|
|
basstracker721
Posts: 6
Joined: 5/27/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Eutychus
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
I wonder what the 4 pointers find difficult... guessing the "P".
Most embrace "P" but cannot accept "L".
You know Euty...For the life of me, I cannot understand why L is so hard to embrace for so many. Especially if they claim the other 4!..LOL Why would God punish his Son for everyone's sins, then re-punish some for the same sins?... That is claiming that Christ's propitiation wasnt good enough...isnt it? I mean, we both know that Christ's atonement was certainly powerful enough to atone for the sins of everyone in history if God wanted it to be so, But we know that Hell will be a reality for many too, so that leads me to believe that their sins weren't atoned for...or "paid" for. That is why they have to be punished. To me that is so easy to understand. Of course, maybe that ability comes from the Holy Spirit.
The idea of "universal" atonement has to be created in order to claim "free will" salvation. But in no way, can I see the idea of universal atonement living in harmony with any of the other 4 points of Calvinism.
If one says they are a "4 pointer" because they believe in "universal" atonement, then they would have to be denying the power of the atonement since we all know that some will go to hell.... Then they would have to deny the "P". That is if they deny the "L", because if some go to hell, and they are all atoned for(if they claim universal), then they didnt persevere. hmmm..
Also,To uphold universal atonement, you would have to deny the doctrine of election ALTOGETHER since we know Christ wouldn't die for everyone then elect certain ones. That just wouldn't make sense. So the "U" is out. But I guess the "foreknowlege" view lets them claim their version of the doctrine of election, which Romans 9:16 totally destroys anyways...so the "U" is out.
We are left with the "T" and the "I". ...For the "I"...if all were atoned for "universal atonement", and some go to hell, then the grace wasn't iresistable. Guess that omits the "i" . We are left with "T". If we are totally depraved, we cant choose God because we won't. So if atonement were universal, and we were totally depraved, then the atonement would be all for not, because nobody would choose God.....that is if Free Will were true.
To me, all 5 points compliment each other. I guess it is either all or none for me.
My little theory there probably made very little sense on paper. But in my brain it makes complete sense. What I do know, is that the doctrines of grace are such a beautiful thing. So concrete, and so glorifying to God alone. To me, upholding the Arminian idea of "free will" does nothing but deny Grace. If it were up to us, why would Grace be needed?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What kind of Calvinist - 7/15/2010 2:55:09 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 430
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
Hello all you Calvinist folks!
I must confess that I was one of those that voted under Calvinists aren't cool. But my options were limited. Perhaps another option such as "Disagrees with Calvinism" or something to that effect could have been a selection. After all, many of my close friends are Calvinists and I wouldn't say they aren't "cool," however strongly I may protest against their soteriology, Christology, and theology. I attended a Reformed church for nearly a decade. The pastor was a jolly nerd, and I say that with affection and delight. Many of the folks were kind and generous. So, even among those Calvinists I wouldn't say they weren't "cool."
I am now an Orthodox Christian having been received into the Church on Lazarus Saturday of this year. My journey toward Orthodoxy took several years and was not without much prayer, studying, conflict, opposition from friends and family, and tears. Yet all the while I have never ceased to trust in the very presence of Christ and His love for me.
May God bless each one of you as we travel toward the Celestial City.
In Christ's Immeasurable Love,
Darlene
_____________________________
See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. I John 3:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What kind of Calvinist - 8/4/2010 1:09:33 PM
|
|
|
healingtulip
Posts: 2
Joined: 8/4/2010
Status: offline
|
i voted for * Supralapsarian and there can be no other Calvinist
I don't really consider myself to be a calvinist, but I have been called one. :)
_____________________________
"The grace that was willing to forgive is also zealous to transform."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What kind of Calvinist - 3/27/2011 7:33:52 PM
|
|
|
SadieLouWho
Posts: 584
Joined: 3/2/2011
From: Castle Rock
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Eutychus
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
I wonder what the 4 pointers find difficult... guessing the "P".
Most embrace "P" but cannot accept "L".
I have had a lot of trouble with but I'm coming around.
:D
_____________________________
"We should make the effort to get alongside people. We should try and be with them
and understand them so that when we speak the truth, what we say is like an apple of gold in a setting of silver." Jerram Barrs
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What kind of Calvinist - 3/28/2011 8:16:08 AM
|
|
|
cajunhillbilly
Posts: 359
Joined: 5/17/2005
Status: offline
|
I prefer efficacious atonement. Christ's atonement actually saves the elect efficaciously. But I know what you mean.
_____________________________
"A Stargate. You know, kind of a ring thing. Comes with a dialer. You hit some symbols. The lights come on. It spins around. And then it flushes sideways" Jack O'Neill on Stargate SG1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What kind of Calvinist - 4/18/2011 2:06:35 PM
|
|
|
doinkdom
Posts: 3480
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: The higher lowcountry
Status: offline
|
IMO you are either a Calvinist or not.
I know I have heard of Reformed and Totally Reformed. The difference being TR is leans more to the right when it comes to many family things such as "family" communion, home schooling only, arranged marriages, children receiving communion, etc.
And from what I've read about John Calvin, the assumptions surrounding uber-Calvinism today are not necessarily what he taught or believed.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What kind of Calvinist - 4/18/2011 2:08:09 PM
|
|
|
doinkdom
Posts: 3480
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: The higher lowcountry
Status: offline
|
Oops...and I am definitely a TULIP gal here.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What kind of Calvinist - 7/11/2011 8:35:05 AM
|
|
|
Jeffriesw
Posts: 36
Joined: 1/9/2009
From: Central Florida
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: doinkdom
IMO you are either a Calvinist or not.
I know I have heard of Reformed and Totally Reformed. The difference being TR is leans more to the right when it comes to many family things such as "family" communion, home schooling only, arranged marriages, children receiving communion, etc.
And from what I've read about John Calvin, the assumptions surrounding uber-Calvinism today are not necessarily what he taught or believed.
From what I have picked up on other forums the "commonly" definition of reformed within the refomred community is:
Full 5 points DoG + Confessional + Covenant Theology = Reformed
(I fit in this category)
Like you said, their are some uber or hyper reformed folks that go way beyond what not only what Calvin espoused, but what has been commonly held to as orthodoxy in the history of the reformation as true Biblical Theology, they start elevating their personal opinion to the level of Biblical theology or even go so far to embrace what would be called heresy even among reformed people.
_____________________________
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels." - John Calvin
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
-- Gud är grymma !!! var snäll och hjälp mig!
