My definition of Calvinism

[John81]

These are not what Calvinism teaches.

Total depravity according to Calvinism is not about our lack of righteousness, but about being unable to respond to the Gospel without being regenerated by God (basically).

Unconditional election is not referring to no conditions for salvation - but that man has no will in the matter, God unconditionally makes him saved or lost.

Limited Atonement - Calvinists have said over and over that God only chose the elect, regardless of what Danny teaches about it.

Irresistible Grace - The Bible teaches that man can resist God's grace and call to salvation - but Calvinism teaches man cannot resist God's call to salvation.

Perseverance of the Saints - salvation dependant upon our holding on and persevering till the end, rather than God preserving us despite ourselves. Kept by God's power, not our own.

And thus part of the problem here. Calvinism is used to describe a variety of beliefs. What Danny has put forth here is the same thing I've heard many other "Calvinists" state as their beliefs.

Now the question comes up: Are these people really Calvinists?

[speerjp1]

i do agree however' date=' if one is speaking from first hand knowledge about a topic, those who claim to be doing the same should be able to tell and not make claims a person doesn't know their topic. Of course, if such isn't the case, then they are right to bring this up.[/quote']

Well, now, how are folks supposed to know what we have read, experienced, or even believed in the past? :loco The problem is that there is obviously so much variance in the core beliefs of those who call themselves calvinists (Just look at the title of this thread, for crying out loud!) that no matter what question is put to them, it is invariably put down as a lack of knowledge about calvinism. Trust me: I haven't been doing this as long as some of you, but 10 years is long enough to be aware to the common tactics of calvinists.

Now for the broader issues that should cause problems for you calvinists: it is simply ridiculous in my opinion that there are still so many people willing to defend a man and his ideas.

Is God's word not sufficient?

Is any man's "theological system" worth such defense, offense, and division when evidence of its validity is found mostly outside of God's word?

It has been shown time and time again (in this thread and others) how the whole Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is in perfect harmony in regard to the free gift of salvation and the means by which God has chosen to give it to men. This has been rejected by many on the basis of a relatively few verses taken out of context that, when bound together in some man's "systematic theology," are contrived into a doctrine that still has no sound Biblical backing: not from prophecy; not from history; not from poetry; not from the law; not from the New Testament. End of story.

So go ahead and follow your reformed leaders. Follow those who sought not a revival of Biblical Christianity, but the reformation of humanistic religion. Follow those who sought not the liberty of humanity to be free in his consience toward God, but persecuted and murdered those who disagreed with them. They were all depraved men; even more so after their so-called conversions. Go ahead and follow them. :2cents :2cents

Adios calvinists.

One more thing before I go: I challenge you all to read Dave Hunt's book, What Love Is This? As much of Calvin and Spurgeon as I've read, surely you could read one good book by a non-calvinist.

[JerryNumbers]

I agree whole heartily.

I to notice when this subject of Calvinism comes us, it always seems someone will take the route that those who disagree with this man made belief system does not really know what they're talking about and do not have any 1st hand information

That said, the TULIP doctrine is not that had to understand, and it not that had to find what Each letter of the TULIP stands for.

And its very easy to discredit.

[282Mikado]

Well, now, how are folks supposed to know what we have read, experienced, or even believed in the past? :loco The problem is that there is obviously so much variance in the core beliefs of those who call themselves calvinists (Just look at the title of this thread, for crying out loud!) that no matter what question is put to them, it is invariably put down as a lack of knowledge about calvinism. Trust me: I haven't been doing this as long as some of you, but 10 years is long enough to be aware to the common tactics of calvinists.

Now for the broader issues that should cause problems for you calvinists: it is simply ridiculous in my opinion that there are still so many people willing to defend a man and his ideas.

Is God's word not sufficient?

Is any man's "theological system" worth such defense, offense, and division when evidence of its validity is found mostly outside of God's word?

It has been shown time and time again (in this thread and others) how the whole Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is in perfect harmony in regard to the free gift of salvation and the means by which God has chosen to give it to men. This has been rejected by many on the basis of a relatively few verses taken out of context that, when bound together in some man's "systematic theology," are contrived into a doctrine that still has no sound Biblical backing: not from prophecy; not from history; not from poetry; not from the law; not from the New Testament. End of story.

So go ahead and follow your reformed leaders. Follow those who sought not a revival of Biblical Christianity, but the reformation of humanistic religion. Follow those who sought not the liberty of humanity to be free in his consience toward God, but persecuted and murdered those who disagreed with them. They were all depraved men; even more so after their so-called conversions. Go ahead and follow them. :2cents :2cents

Adios calvinists.

One more thing before I go: I challenge you all to read Dave Hunt's book, What Love Is This? As much of Calvin and Spurgeon as I've read, surely you could read one good book by a non-calvinist.

:amen:

[chev1958]

Since we seem to be having problems with the proper definition of Calvinism, let's allow pro-Calvinists define their doctrines. Highlights from calvinistcorner.com (a very pro-Calvinist website):

Basically, Calvinism is known by an acronym: T.U.L.I.P. These five categories do not comprise Calvinism in totality. They simply represent some of its main points.

Total Depravity: Sin has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind, and body are all affected by sin. We are completely sinful. We are not as sinful as we could be, but we are completely affected by sin.

Unconditional Election: God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not.

Limited Atonement: Jesus died only for the elect. Though Jesus? sacrifice was sufficient for all, it was not efficacious for all. Jesus only bore the sins of the elect.

Irresistible Grace: When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted. This call is by the Holy Spirit who works in the hearts and minds of the elect to bring them to repentance and regeneration whereby they willingly and freely come to God.

Perseverance of the Saints: You cannot lose your salvation. Because the Father has elected, the Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those thus saved are eternally secure. They are eternally secure in Christ.

This material is copyrighted, so be careful how you use it. I've quoted only portions of the website to allow for discussion, which is called the "Fair Use Doctrine" in copyright laws. These are the definitions I have always heard and used myself with debating Calvinists.

A more "official" site is the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics at http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/index.html As you can see, Danny, your definitions don't line up with official Calvinism doctrine.

[Disciple Maker]

I only got a little way in, and saw so many horrible lies that I stopped.
Is this guy crazy or just not very bright. Security of the believer is one of the foundational points of Calvinism
An outright lie. I'm a Calvinist, and that's not what I mean. I know of few Calvinists that go to that extreme. He's taking the exception (hyper-Calvinism) and insisting it is the rule. That's disengenuous.
Again, where'd this guy get his degree, from a Cracker Jack Box?
No, it doesn't, and again, he's taking the rare, extremist view and insisting it's what all Calvinists believe and teach.
This was where I stopped. Why in the world would you guys want to use someone so off the wall to defend your point?

Danny,

The kind of statements you make in this post about Dr. Ron Comfort only magnify your ignorance.

Dr. Comfort certainly does not need me to defend him. However, it does appear you do not even know who he is.

Dr. Comfort has been (and still is) one of the Pillars of true, Biblical Fundamentalism for about 50 years. He is the President of Ambassador Baptist College. His credentials and integrity are impeccable. He has been faithfully preaching God's Word for longer than you have been alive. There are literally hundreds of men in the ministry serving the Lord who were trained under his tutelage.

Every single thing he says in the message I posted is true of Calvinism. He certainly is not the one showing his ignorance of Calvinism. You would be wise to listen to what he says rather than criticize it.

[John81]

I'm not espousing or promoting Calvinism; I just want to make that clear.

My point in many of my posts here is the term "Calvinism" is applied to a wide variety of beliefs that may or may not even be what Calvin put forth. Look at how many definitions of Calvinism we have just in this thread! Some of those I disagree with completely, but some I'm in at least partial agreement with but I don't believe that makes one a Calvinist because most everyone here believes if a person is truly born again then they can't lose their salvation.

It seems to me too much is lumped under the heading of "Calvinism" by non-Calvinists and self-proclaimed Calvinists as well.

For myself, I look at what is put forth and compare it to Scripture. Some of what is termed Calvinist contradicts Scripture and therefore is wrong. Some of what is put forth as Calvinist agrees with Scripture and is therefore right.

It would be so much easier if we went totally by Scripture rather than trying to fit ourselves and others into various categories. There is such a broad difference between many versions of "Calvinism" that they can't all be Calvinism.

[speerjp1]

For myself' date=' I look at what is put forth and compare it to Scripture. Some of what is termed Calvinist contradicts Scripture and therefore is wrong. [u']Some of what is put forth as Calvinist agrees with Scripture and is therefore right. [emphasis added by speerjp1]

"What is put forth as calvinist" that agrees with scripture is simply scriptural truth. Nothing more; nothing less.

If I were to state that God came to Earth in the flesh via virgin birth, it wouldn't make that statement a "Speerist" statement; it is simply scriptural truth restated by a fallen man. Nothing more; nothing less.

A man cannot give credibility to God's word, but God's word is where we get our credibility: if a man's teachings do not line up with God's word, then he lacks credibility.

It would be so much easier if we went totally by Scripture rather than trying to fit ourselves and others into various categories. [emphasis added by speerjp1]

:amen:

[bob123]

I have been directed to this thread as I wished to raise a question related to Calvinism and was advised to do so here; my question is as follows:

Acts 13 v 48 says that those "ordained to eternal life believed". I am not a calvinist, far from it, but find this is a verse they use to justify unconditional election. Can anyone refute the calvinist argument on this verse?

[Jerry]

In order to refute it, it would be helpful to know exactly what they are saying about that verse.

God knows who would be saved, who would trust in Christ from all eternity. He has ordained that salvation is only through His Son - and He knows those who will respond to that salvation. All those whom He knew would come to Christ came His ordained way, all those ordained to eternal life (ie. through faith in His Son) did believe.

It doesn't teach anything about God choosing them to believe - but indicating all those whom He knew would believe did in fact do so.

[Disciple Maker]

I have been directed to this thread as I wished to raise a question related to Calvinism and was advised to do so here; my question is as follows:

Acts 13 v 48 says that those "ordained to eternal life believed". I am not a calvinist, far from it, but find this is a verse they use to justify unconditional election. Can anyone refute the calvinist argument on this verse?

?And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed? (Acts 13:48).

The following is a quote from A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Volume III, Acts, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich., pages 199-201

?As the Gentiles heard this they were glad (akouonta ta ethn

[heartstrings]

I have been directed to this thread as I wished to raise a question related to Calvinism and was advised to do so here; my question is as follows:

Acts 13 v 48 says that those "ordained to eternal life believed". I am not a calvinist, far from it, but find this is a verse they use to justify unconditional election. Can anyone refute the calvinist argument on this verse?

I think it means they were "disposed", "determined", or "resolved" that they wanted eternal life.
Some people don't want to live forever, some believe the grave is the end.
Others want to live forever, but have not yet come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus.

[John the Baptist]

Jerry said, quote: Perseverance of the Saints - the elect will/must persevere in the faith (some Calvinists teach they must do this to maintain their salvation) - focussing more on man's efforts than God's preservation.

I have never known of a Calvinist that believed man must keep on keeping on or do something to keep himself saved. Its not by human effort that one perseveres but by the power of God.

Can you give a quote from a calvinist that states that man must persevere in order to keep on being saved?

God Bless
John

[John the Baptist]

?And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed? (Acts 13:48).

The following is a quote from A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Volume III, Acts, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich., pages 199-201

[Disciple Maker]