Agreed, depending on what that would look like. I only know he claims to have been a Calvinist.
Would tend to see this as being heresy of Charles finney being taken to its full fruit conclusion, as many who are really saved still want to do their very best to make sure their sacred cow of ;full free will" is exalted and brough into Christian salvation theologyYep.
Two thoughts on that. The first is that the use of the word "innocent" can be misleading. Innocence is generally tied to matters of wrongdoing. Those lacking experience (like newborns) have no experience so how could such a person possibly have any experience of wrongdoing (or so that rationale goes)? There's likely no doctrinal consideration given to the question. Second, polls do not always or well reflect the depth of a person's beliefs. I'd guess most of that two-thirds would also agree with a statement such as, "I have been a sinner from my birth," or "death comes to everyone because of Adam," or "Everyone will eventually sin," and do so not thinking of the contradiction or cognitive dissonance inherent in these co-occurring beliefs. I cannot count the number of times I have heard a counseling client, especially males, deny the premise of brokenness. "I'm not broken," is the declaration of the man losing his marriage that has been in crisis for a long time, partly because he long ago abdicated his roles and either did not see it or dismissed what he knows to be true. The drug or pornography dependent, the sex worker, the controller, the abuse or combat survivor..... most know there's something awry within them, but many deny it knowingly or unknowingly. So, I am not surprised many Evangelicals in the US think they are born innocent.
Is Provisionism correlative or causal (or both)?
Not to detract from the op, but a British seminarian preached today and he and his wife (who is Texan) minister in Brussels, here, according to him, only 1% of the population is Christian (the Vatican, according to him, says 8% but that's still dismal). He spoke of effective preaching resulting in people asking, "Where can I go to hear more about this?" or "What do I do next?" and his having nowhere to send them because there are so few congregations (churches) and the ones that exist are typically inaccessible because of their location (outside of the city, across town, in an impoverished part of the city). Landlords and municipal authorities are often hostile to any attempts to establish meeting places. They will not renew rent so sufficient funds to purchase must be obtained and property in the city is at premium prices. Despite the foolishness of the two-thirds (and it is rightly called foolishness) we live in an amazing place where, by God's grace, we have been privileged to live out our faith with a first-world version of suffering and endurance that could be much, much worse. This privilege, imo, is an incredible responsibility, and I will say standing on Christ's victory is critical to that responsibility.
Thinking we're born innocent diminishes Christ's sacrifice and the victory thereof.
In the logic of Pelagianism, Jesus defeated a mistake each human makes, not a disease so sickening it corrupted everything in creation, and were it not for God preserving a remnant all creation would have been lost and destroyed long ago.
Your chronology of volitionalism op was very good but there were forces outside the Church that influenced bad thinking, bad doctrine, and bad practice all along the way and as the Church left the totalitarian control of the RCC those worldly influences came from outside, not just from within. Humanism has always been a problem when not correctly considered in the context of the Creator. With the introduction of experientialism, modern Christians put a gun to their head. The gun was loaded with blanks, but wadding proves just as lethal when the gun is held so close. In America we've always had this dissociated sense of self in which fierce independence exists alongside equally fierce national identity and compassionate community. The founders built this republic on Montesquieu, Locke, and Rousseau, and very quickly Hegel, Kierkegaard, Darwin, Marx, and then Nietzsche were impacting the Church (through academia and fads). America had a Civil War that a lot of Christians (mistakenly) thought was the beginning of the Apocalypse and in typical American fashion many of them went out to the early battlefields to have a picnic and watch the end of the world begin!
Such is the nature of much of American Evangelicalism.
Meanwhile folks like Darby were running amuck outside the US tearing down the portion of the Church in which they lived under the misguided guise of purification. With the rise of (in no particular order) Modernism, Postmodernism, Post-postmodernism, Existentialism, Analytics, Positivism, Pragmatism, Phenomenology, Idealism (not to be confused with the Christian eschatology of the same name), Structuralism, Deconstruction, Feminism, Objectivism, etc. it is no wonder the Church significant portions of Evangelicals have crooked ideas about themselves. Most Christians have never heard of most of the philosophies in that list but every single one of us has been influenced by them, even if it is only through antithesis (or so Hegel would have us understand).
It is really quite remarkable Christianity exists and there are people who believe the gospel. Sadly, many think this is because of their genius and not God's. After all, we are born innocent and screw ourselves up. There's no invisible force(s) influencing any of us. I chose God. All He had to do was have the gospel preached. I went to where it could be heard. I listened. I considered what was said. I made a decision. I'm such a good and wise person (and God has rewarded me accordingly because He does not force salvation on anyone).
How dare you even remotely suggest otherwise.
To bring this back to your point, the radio, television, and internet make exposure epidemic (Osteen, Hillsong, Dispensationalism, prosperity, etc.). I once offered to teach a survey class of Christian theology at a well-known church in DC that used my counseling services. They have a filled auditorium in attendance on Sunday morning and an international presence in cyberspace and I was told, "No, we don't teach theology, we don't do that here. We just bring them to Christ."There is a lot of diversity of belief among Christians, so I am not surprised to hear two-thirds think they're born innocent. This is critical because a Pelagianism was vigorously and prayerfully debated many centuries ago and deemed heretical. While there has always existed a modicum of diversity within Christianity that diversity was not found in core doctrines. The inherent propensity of humans to sin (in spite of their being created in God's image) is core doctrine and that, when followed through to its logically necessary conclusion there is no option to believe in one's neonatal innocence. Ignorance, maybe, but not innocence
Apologies. Once I got started it just came out of the keyboard.
This seems to be direct cause of many who cannot accept that to be a Calvinists, one must hold to all 5 points of Doctrines of grace, and those who hold to say 3 or 4 tend to look at us holding to all 5 as NOT regular ones, but hyper and extreme ones, but would argue back they are not even Calvinists, but have just redefined who one is. many times have read systematic theologies where author claims to be a Moderate Calvinist, as holding to part but not all of the DOG, but that to me would really be more akin to being an Evangelical Arminian in theology
I've lost count of the times where I write "summary," or "brief comment," or "two points" in an introductory paragraph, but then I had to edit it later due to the same thing.
Yep. That is why the question asking where we might find scripture explicitly attributing salvation to the sinner's volition is so enraging.
I would not go that far. There is quite a bit of diversity within orthodox Calvinism, and there are many "entry-level" Cals who either don't yet know or fully/correctly understand the five points. Furthermore, I'd place the WCF as a standard over the five points simply because that is a set of formal doctrinal statements considered authoritative. The WCF was written in the early 1600s as a product of more than a hundred (Puritan) clergy. TULIP was conceived about 300 years later and is attributed to a single individual (either McAfee or Boettner). It is my observation a lot of self-styled Cals do not correctly understand TULIP. Most define each term human-centrically rather than Theo-centrically, creating a lot of confusion and a lot of strawmen among the opponents.
Very good point, as was just pointing out on that posting that there does seem to be an intend to make we who are the classic 5 pointers to be seen as now Hyper Calvinist, as some want to redefine and water down those doctrines of grace to appear to make them 'more acceptable"
Well, a few here (and in most forms) are hyper-Cals. I have often stated strict determinism is as much an abuse of Calvinism/monergism as strict autonomy is an abuse of Arminianism. The poles are rarely correct or healthy. I have also often said the number one problem discussing soteriology is that each side gets their own position wrong. The second most frequently occurring problem is that one side gets the other side wrong (strawmen). This particular forum has Cals who correctly couch TULIP theocentrically. Most Cals mistakenly couch TULIP anthropocentrically
. Furthermore, an accusation of "hyper," usually serves only as a fallacy, an appeal to ridicule when coming from the other side. The critic would first have to have a correct understanding of Calvinism for the label "hyper" to have any merit.Are you referring to Supralapsarian/infralapsarianism now then?Well, a few here (and in most forms) are hyper-Cals. I have often stated strict determinism is as much an abuse of Calvinism/monergism as strict autonomy is an abuse of Arminianism. The poles are rarely correct or healthy. I have also often said the number one problem discussing soteriology is that each side gets their own position wrong. The second most frequently occurring problem is that one side gets the other side wrong (strawmen). This particular forum has Cals who correctly couch TULIP theocentrically. Most Cals mistakenly couch TULIP anthropocentrically
When I'm accused of being "hyper" I tell them I'm not even Calvinist—only Calvinistic. I would consider myself a strict determinist, but for the notions that come to the minds of other people they think are implied by that simply logical position.Well, a few here (and in most forms) are hyper-Cals. I have often stated strict determinism is as much an abuse of Calvinism/monergism as strict autonomy is an abuse of Arminianism. The poles are rarely correct or healthy. I have also often said the number one problem discussing soteriology is that each side gets their own position wrong. The second most frequently occurring problem is that one side gets the other side wrong (strawmen). This particular forum has Cals who correctly couch TULIP theocentrically. Most Cals mistakenly couch TULIP anthropocentrically
I am surprised by just how many times people who are against the theology of Calvinism have never even bothered to read calvin, or any systematic theology written, as they keep on parroting the strawman arguments that our God is cruel, created people just to burn in hell, denies us any free will, basically a puppet master delighting in torturing people
And, in fact, not realizing that their construction there is self-contradictory. If puppets can be tortured, they pretty obviously are not robots. Robots would not 'mind', any more than an atheist should have any notions of morality.
Those also always state that the God of Calvinism denies free will, and is not fair, but we do not want God to be free with us, but to show to us grace
That brings to mind Norman Geisler's book Chosen But Free. He identified himself as a Calvinist, them named five-point Calvinists as hypers, then in his book tore down every letter of the acronym by redefining terms and by an inaccurate portrayal of the Calvinist/Reformed soteriology that are within the acronym. And none of it involving exegesis or systematic theology.
dr Geisler in His 4 volume Systematic theology stated that he was a moderate 3 point Calvinist, and labeled those hold to all 5 points of doctrine of Grace as being "Hyper Calvinists", yet he own belief should had been labeled Evangelical Arminian
What is interesting to me is that the Infra edition seems to be the one of the Confessions of the faith
Yep. It's quite inconvenient
.The facts speak for themselves. I cannot take credit for facts.
Well.... Let me encourage you to speak for yourself, about yourself, and only for and about yourself whenever you are thinking something isn't adequately understood because there are people who do understand the understandable. Don't over-generalize thinking your personal anecdotal experience is applicable to everyone else. Give Philippians 2:3 an occasional try
. I, for one, do not have any problem "approaching (or defining) TULIP theocentrically, nor any problem whatsoever "wrapping my mind" its precepts. ITD used to give me trouble but thanks to on op on the topic I've a much better grasp on that matter. @Arial has done an excellent job of articulating the doctrines of grace as they apply to various parts of TULIP and, if I have inferred from her threads correctly, then she's learned that information from other, various, sources and attempted to communicate that knowledge and understanding to others for their benefit. If true, that would mean there are more people than just her and me who have wrapped our minds around those precepts.
You'll have to be more specific and more relevant to this op, and probably take up the matter with the lapsarians in one of the ops to which I linked.
I'm not saying that TULIP, nor even anything man comes up with, is hard to grasp. I'm saying that we can't sound the depths (for obvious lack of any other way to get you (over years now, it seems), to accept what I'm constantly getting at). TULIP may be true, it is indeed very useful and helpful, it is implied by many sound doctrines and doctrinal statements and by the Word of God and good reason, but it is not THE TRUTH.Well.... Let me encourage you to speak for yourself, about yourself, and only for and about yourself whenever you are thinking something isn't adequately understood because there are people who do understand the understandable. Don't over-generalize thinking your personal anecdotal experience is applicable to everyone else. Give Philippians 2:3 an occasional try
TULIP is not particularly hard to grasp, imho.
Which Confession, and where in that confession?
