What do Calvinists really believe?

[mondar]

Please correct any errors I might have made explaining the Calvinist position. Or feel free to expand anything I have said. I welcome your input.

Thank you for the offer. I really have no corrections on what you said. I would not mind adding a few comments.

The term "Calvinist" has to be defined historically. I noticed few discussing the history of the term, but rather many seemed to be more interested in either bashing Calvinism (at times with very unfortunate misrepresentations) or in supporting their own brand of Calvinism. Certainly the scriptures and doctrine are paramount, but I did not understand your intent for this thread to be another Calvinst vs non-Calvinist apologetic. The only reference to history seemed to be one writer that focused upon the writings of Calvin himself. Certainly that would be a valid approach to define the term, but I think that approach would need expanded.

Calvinism is highly creedal, and has a rich history of creedal statements. Some reflection on the Calvinistic creeds would be needed to define Calivinsm. I am speaking of the Westminister statement of 1648. Also, consideration should be given to the 2nd London Baptist Confession of 1689.

I know there are many other statements because Calvinists are very creedal. Also, Calvinism would have to be defined by the continental synod of Dort.

But a thread to define Calvinism seems superfluous. As I said at the beginning, there are some who do not seem to need to know what it is to condemn it. That would ruin any thread trying to define the term.

 

[mlqurgw]

Thank you for the offer. I really have no corrections on what you said. I would not mind adding a few comments.

The term "Calvinist" has to be defined historically. I noticed few discussing the history of the term, but rather many seemed to be more interested in either bashing Calvinism (at times with very unfortunate misrepresentations) or in supporting their own brand of Calvinism. Certainly the scriptures and doctrine are paramount, but I did not understand your intent for this thread to be another Calvinst vs non-Calvinist apologetic. The only reference to history seemed to be one writer that focused upon the writings of Calvin himself. Certainly that would be a valid approach to define the term, but I think that approach would need expanded.

Calvinism is highly creedal, and has a rich history of creedal statements. Some reflection on the Calvinistic creeds would be needed to define Calivinsm. I am speaking of the Westminister statement of 1648. Also, consideration should be given to the 2nd London Baptist Confession of 1689.

I know there are many other statements because Calvinists are very creedal. Also, Calvinism would have to be defined by the continental synod of Dort.

But a thread to define Calvinism seems superfluous. As I said at the beginning, there are some who do not seem to need to know what it is to condemn it. That would ruin any thread trying to define the term.

I would surely agree that historically Calvinism is exactly as you said. And to properly understand it you need to define it in its historical and creedal context. But would you disagree that the term has become a sort of umbrella which covers a myriad of views based in the five points developed as an answer to the Remonstrants?

 

[Danus]

John 3:34
For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

OK, well I guess that's a fantastic verse. care to explain this in light of Calvin or the sovereignty of God?

I think I'm beating a dead horse to see if it will run.

 

[Danus]

Guys I'm going to bow out of this, but I had fun.

I deplore the term "Calvinist" because I think it's a term devised as something derogatory to identify reformist. I'm not altogether sure how it's been used in the past but I'm sure it's meant more derogatory by others who don't hold to the reformation.

No one says Augustinian-ism, or Luther-ism, or Wesley-ism yet they taught on very similar lines. I prefer to keep the mans name a little more clear and just refer to John Calvin's take on scripture. He was a brilliant theologian and I highly respect his work.

Frankly there are some who get in here with little purpose of learning or sharing. That's a shame.

Thanks for start the thread and providing some input. :waving

 

[Strangelove]

Question:

Do Hyper/High Calvinists believe that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or believe that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal)?

 

[mlqurgw]

Question:

Do Hyper/High Calvinists believe that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or believe that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal)?

First I would like it if you didn't lump Hyper and High Calvinists together. They are not the same thing as I have explained to you. Now that you know the difference it isn't honest to do so.

Most High Cslvinists do not believe in a free offer. We understand that as the Scriptures teach God doesn't offer salvation to any and the Gospel is never presented as an offer but as a gift. God doesn't offer salvation He freely gives it. There is a difference between an offer and a gift.

 

[mlqurgw]

Guys I'm going to bow out of this, but I had fun.

I deplore the term "Calvinist" because I think it's a term devised as something derogatory to identify reformist. I'm not altogether sure how it's been used in the past but I'm sure it's meant more derogatory by others who don't hold to the reformation.

No one says Augustinian-ism, or Luther-ism, or Wesley-ism yet they taught on very similar lines. I prefer to keep the mans name a little more clear and just refer to John Calvin's take on scripture. He was a brilliant theologian and I highly respect his work.

Frankly there are some who get in here with little purpose of learning or sharing. That's a shame.

Thanks for start the thread and providing some input. :waving

Thanks for your input and I enjoyed our interaction.

 

[Strangelove]

First I would like it if you didn't lump Hyper and High Calvinists together. They are not the same thing as I have explained to you. Now that you know the difference it isn't honest to do so.

Well....there are Hyper and High Calvinists on this thread so I was addressing both for their answers. Theres nothing dishonest about it. Plus, just because you claim to be high and not hyper doesn't make it so.

Most High Cslvinists do not believe in a free offer. We understand that as the Scriptures teach God doesn't offer salvation to any and the Gospel is never presented as an offer but as a gift. God doesn't offer salvation He freely gives it. There is a difference between an offer and a gift.

I'd say that would make you hyper. You didnt address mercy.

 

[mlqurgw]

Well....there are Hyper and High Calvinists on this thread so I was addressing both for their answers. Theres nothing dishonest about it. Plus, just because you claim to be high and not hyper doesn't make it so.

Fair enough.

I'd say that would make you hyper. You didnt address mercy.

Call me what you will. I have a pretty thick skin.

 

[mlqurgw]

I can with sincerity proclaim to all sinners that there is mercy with God in Christ. What I can't do, according to the Scriptures, is to tell sinners that God is being merciful to them. I can with sincerity and truthfulness tell all sinners that Christ came and accomplished an effectual atonement for sinners but I can't tell all sinners that Christ died for them. I sincerely preach the Gospel of the free and sovereign grace of God in Christ to all men and leave the rest to God.

 

[Strangelove]

I can with sincerity proclaim to all sinners that there is mercy with God in Christ. What I can't do, according to the Scriptures, is to tell sinners that God is being merciful to them. I can with sincerity and truthfulness tell all sinners that Christ came and accomplished an effectual atonement for sinners but I can't tell all sinners that Christ died for them. I sincerely preach the Gospel of the free and sovereign grace of God in Christ to all men and leave the rest to God.

Ok I'm putting you back (on probation) to high Calvinist.

 

[savedbygrace57]

I can with sincerity proclaim to all sinners that there is mercy with God in Christ. What I can't do, according to the Scriptures, is to tell sinners that God is being merciful to them. I can with sincerity and truthfulness tell all sinners that Christ came and accomplished an effectual atonement for sinners but I can't tell all sinners that Christ died for them. I sincerely preach the Gospel of the free and sovereign grace of God in Christ to all men and leave the rest to God.

So you would be accurate to say that Christ provided an effectual atonement, that saves some sinners, those Chosen of God !

 

[mondar]

I would surely agree that historically Calvinism is exactly as you said. And to properly understand it you need to define it in its historical and creedal context. But would you disagree that the term has become a sort of umbrella which covers a myriad of views based in the five points developed as an answer to the Remonstrants?

Definitely I would agree that the canons of Dort must be considered in any definition of Calvinism. Dort was one of the few times historic Calvinism meet on an international basis to define itself. There are more modern meetings of international Calvinism, but Dort was a landmark historic expression that cannot be ignored. I think I remember that the only nation which was not represented was France. The French Government would not allow its Calvinists to participate. So then, while I pointed to English creeds (Westminster and 1689 LBC) would certainly agree to consider international Calvinism as a part of the definition of "Calvinism."

If I can explain my motive for trying to keep things over-simplified.... I did ignore commenting upon continental Calvinism for the sake of those who constantly misrepresent Calvinism. If you read some of the threads, there was one writer that did not even spell it right. He kept calling it "Calvanism." "Those terrible Calvanists." While Dort was international, and did include the scottish and the english, it took place in Holland and I was thinking of it as non-english.

If we wanted to really have a high level conversation, I am aware that there are a host of continental creeds. Dort was international, but there are obscure eastern european national Calvinistic creeds, there are all sorts of historic Calvinistic creeds, but I did not want to make things too complicated. For a professional scholar, it would make a good doctoral thesis to compare the variety of Calvinistic continental creedal statements. Well, I ain't no professional scholar, but it would be interesting reading.

Anyway, all this to say definitely I agree that the canons of Dort should be considered as an expression of Calvinism.

 

[mlqurgw]

So you would be accurate to say that Christ provided an effectual atonement, that saves some sinners, those Chosen of God !

That would be accurate. And I preach that very thing almost every time I preach. I preach clearly and without compromise the electing love and effectual atonement of Christ Jesus the Lord. I have good news for those who know what it is to be a sinner.

 

[mlqurgw]

Definitely I would agree that the canons of Dort must be considered in any definition of Calvinism. Dort was one of the few times historic Calvinism meet on an international basis to define itself. There are more modern meetings of international Calvinism, but Dort was a landmark historic expression that cannot be ignored. I think I remember that the only nation which was not represented was France. The French Government would not allow its Calvinists to participate. So then, while I pointed to English creeds (Westminster and 1689 LBC) would certainly agree to consider international Calvinism as a part of the definition of "Calvinism."

If I can explain my motive for trying to keep things over-simplified.... I did ignore commenting upon continental Calvinism for the sake of those who constantly misrepresent Calvinism. If you read some of the threads, there was one writer that did not even spell it right. He kept calling it "Calvanism." "Those terrible Calvanists." While Dort was international, and did include the scottish and the english, it took place in Holland and I was thinking of it as non-english.

If we wanted to really have a high level conversation, I am aware that there are a host of continental creeds. Dort was international, but there are obscure eastern european national Calvinistic creeds, there are all sorts of historic Calvinistic creeds, but I did not want to make things too complicated. For a professional scholar, it would make a good doctoral thesis to compare the variety of Calvinistic continental creedal statements. Well, I ain't no professional scholar, but it would be interesting reading.

Anyway, all this to say definitely I agree that the canons of Dort should be considered as an expression of Calvinism.

I want to make sure that there are no misunderstandings between us so I am going to be forthright concerning my self and Calvinism. In a strict technical sense I am not a Calvinist, though I do hold to a covenenant theology as did John Gill, and do not fall under the Reformed banner either. I have studied both WCF and LBC and find that there are some things in both I cannot agree with. I differ from Reformed doctrine on the law, the concept of necessary consequence as it is used in the confessions, especially concerning the law, and sanctification as a process. But I do fall under the umbrella of Calvinism because I strongly hold to and preach the Doctrines of Grace called TULIP and the everlasting Covenant of Grace. I just wanted you to know where I am coming from but I suspect that you are in a very narrow group who even would understand what I am saying. To most folks I am a Calvinist and I don't waste time trying to expalin it as they wouldn't understand anyway.

 

[savedbygrace57]

That would be accurate. And I preach that very thing almost every time I preach. I preach clearly and without compromise the electing love and effectual atonement of Christ Jesus the Lord. I have good news for those who know what it is to be a sinner.

So you preach without compromise that Christ died only for the elect ! When I do that, generally people disagrees with that.

So if you do, what kinda responses do you get ?

 

[mlqurgw]

So you preach without compromise that Christ died only for the elect ! When I do that, generally people disagrees with that.

So if you do, what kinda responses do you get ?

I sometimes get the same responses that the Apostles got when they preached. It ususally is anywhere from a simple shaking of the head to red faced fist clenching hatred. I have had folks walk out on me during the middle of the message, but I have also had just as many rejoice in it. I always want to be clear when I preach. I don't ever want anyone to not be able to understand what I am saying and walk away thinking that I said something that I didn't. I do not trifle with the souls of men and women. But I also do a great deal of preaching to the choir so to speak. Most of the churches I preach in aleady believe these things and rejoice in them.

Now I want you to understand that effectual atonement and electing love are not the focus of my messages Christ is. Every time I preach the electing love of God I preach it in Christ. Every time I preach the effectual atonement I preach it as being accomplished in and by Christ. I have heard many who preach these things as stand alone truths but unless Christ is wrapped around them they are worthless knowledge. The beauty of the Gospel of the sovereign grace of God is Christ. Preach Him.

 

[savedbygrace57]

mlq:

Now I want you to understand that effectual atonement and electing love are not the focus of my messages Christ is.

I cannot begin to see these things not as a whole !

 

[mlqurgw]

mlq:



I cannot begin to see these things not as a whole !

I am not sure that I understand what you are saying here.

 

[savedbygrace57]

I am not sure that I understand what you are saying here.

Thats a shame..