What type of Calvinist am I?

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Well, I reckon the same way you said:


By being in the faith almost fifty years~and through thousands debates with different men of different faith throughout this world.

Red Baker:

Not bragging, but I have you beat a number of years—plus, my debates, orally and in book form, have been many. My latest book is on Roman Catholicism, under the caption, "The Son of Perdition." Somehow, send me your Postal Address and I'll send you a free copy.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

What do you think man "cannot (even) see the kingdom of God unless he is born again" (Jn 3:3) means.

And? How many times must it be stated before it is true?

Spiritually dead mean cannot spiritually, see, hear or make any spiritual response. They must be brought back to spiritual life in the rebirth by the Holy Spirit in order to do so..

And God's part is the rebirth so that man can see, hear and respond.
And God's part is the gift of faith (Php 1:29, Ac 13:48, Ac 18:27, 2 Pe 1:1, Ro 12:3) by which man believes.

Not according to Jesus (Jn 3:3-5) and the apostle.

Spiritually dead men do not have the Holy Spirit and can make no spiritual response such as spiritual hearing, spiritual seeing, spiritual faith, etc. (1 Co 2:14).

Or being a parable, does it symbolize the operation of the Holy Spirit in the prodigal, reviving his spiritual life and giving him a desire to return to his father, just as he does in all the born again who were prodigal until their rebirth?


With apologies to your theology, what Jesus "believed" is not stated in the parable.
What he believed is:
what he said; i.e., one cannot see (much less believe and respond to) the kingdom of God apart from the new birth (Jn 3;5), and
what the NT teaches; i.e., the spiritually dead man can make no spiritual responses (1 Co 2:14).

Eleanor:

Here are a few ideas you may want, and possibly need, to read and evaluate.

To extricate the idea that man is incapable of choosing God, Romans, chapter 1, needs to be revisited and appraised. Paul writes about the wickedness of man, apparently the Gentile pagans, and says that “what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them...from what has been made [created things], so that men are without excuse.”

He goes on to say, “Although they knew God [His eternal power and divine nature], they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him” (Rom. 1:18-32). Paul continues by saying that “they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God” (v. 28). Here is what we have:

1) These Gentile pagans knew God through the revelation of creation.
2) They were free to either choose God or reject Him through the only revelation to which they had access.
3) They were free to glorify God and offer their thanksgiving.
4) They even retained the knowledge of God, but cast it aside.
5) Had they glorified God and given Him thanks, they would have become part of the elect, but since they refused Him, they remained part of the non-elect.

Clarifying The Above
1. Any competent person upon the face of God’s footstool may seek Him, find Him, and choose Him. “To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, he will give eternal life” (Rom. 2:7). As verse 9 reveals, Paul is talking about “every human being.”

2. If God enables a man to seek Him, He also gives him the ability to choose Him! Here’s another clincher: Paul, in referring to the entire human family, writes, “God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each of us” (Acts 17:27).

3. But how may a man—any man—seek God and find Him if he is void of free will and the ability to choose? So, who is accessible and who does the seeking? God, of course, makes Himself available to every man, everywhere, after which some men choose to accept Him while others choose to reject Him. Those who accept Him are His elect. God knew who they were before the foundation of the universe. On that basis, predestination seems to rest.

4. The scriptures above demonstrate rather strongly that God has not constrained a segment of the population to be saved and arbitrarily by-passed all others. They establish the truth that anyone and everyone may choose to accept God or reject Him. Paul’s words—as well as Jesus’—forever dispels the main thrusts of Calvinism. There is absolutely no way to turn these facts around in an effort to give them a different meaning. Let’s put it like this:

The receptive heart will seek God and find Him. The non-receptive heart will not seek Him. He will remain dead in his sins.​

 

[Eleanor]

Eleanor:
Here are a few ideas you may want, and possibly need, to read and evaluate.

To extricate the idea that man is incapable of choosing God, Romans, chapter 1, needs to be revisited and appraised. Paul writes about the wickedness of man, apparently the Gentile pagans, and says that “what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them...from what has been made [created things], so that men are without excuse.”
He goes on to say, “Although they knew God [His eternal power and divine nature], they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him” (Rom. 1:18-32). Paul continues by saying that “they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God” (v. 28). Here is what we have:
1) These Gentile pagans knew God through the revelation of creation.
2) They were free to either choose God or reject Him through the only revelation to which they had access.
3) They were free to glorify God and offer their thanksgiving.
4) They even retained the knowledge of God, but cast it aside.
5) Had they glorified God and given Him thanks, they would have become part of the elect, but since they refused Him, they remained part of the non-elect.
Clarifying The Above
1. Any competent person upon the face of God’s footstool may seek Him, find Him, and choose Him. “To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, he will give eternal life” (Rom. 2:7). As verse 9 reveals, Paul is talking about “every human being.”

2. If God enables a man to seek Him, He also gives him the ability to choose Him! Here’s another clincher: Paul, in referring to the entire human family, writes, “God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each of us” (Acts 17:27).

3. But how may a man—any man—seek God and find Him if he is void of free will and the ability to choose? So, who is accessible and who does the seeking? God, of course, makes Himself available to every man, everywhere, after which some men choose to accept Him while others choose to reject Him. Those who accept Him are His elect. God knew who they were before the foundation of the universe. On that basis, predestination seems to rest.

4. The scriptures above demonstrate rather strongly that God has not constrained a segment of the population to be saved and arbitrarily by-passed all others. They establish the truth that anyone and everyone may choose to accept God or reject Him. Paul’s words—as well as Jesus’—forever dispels the main thrusts of Calvinism. There is absolutely no way to turn these facts around in an effort to give them a different meaning. Let’s put it like this:​

The receptive heart will seek God and find Him. The non-receptive heart will not seek Him. He will remain dead in his sins.

Agreed. . .and that receptivity is only by the sovereign rebirth of the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:3-8), as unaccountable as the wind.
We have no more to do with our spiritual rebirth than we did with our natural birth.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Eleanor:

You noted, "We have no more to do with our spiritual rebirth than we did with our natural birth."

I think I need a clarification. The apostle wrote, "Without faith it is impossible to please God." If faith is not warranted on my part, I am not pleasing God. Consequently, I cannot experience the new birth without faith.

Additionally, "...God commands all people everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). Can a man be spiritually born without repenting or reforming his life? If not, then we most certainly do have something to do prior to being born again. Our God does not force or compel anyone to be born again.​

 

[Eleanor]

Eleanor:

You noted, "We have no more to do with our spiritual rebirth than we did with our natural birth."

I think I need a clarification. The apostle wrote, "Without faith it is impossible to please God." If faith is not warranted on my part, I am not pleasing God. Consequently, I cannot experience the new birth without faith.​

Good questions.

Actually, if you have saving faith, you were already born again before you believed, born by sovereign act of the Holy Spirit depending on nothing but his sovereign choice, as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:3-8), as in God's choice of Jacob (Ro 9:10-12).

Additionally, "...God commands all people everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). Can a man be spiritually born without repenting or reforming his life? If not, then we most certainly do have something to do prior to being born again. Our God does not force or compel anyone to be born again.​

Indeed, he does, and were it not for his sovereign grace of rebirth, none would do so, because none want to do so.
And God owes grace to no one, it is unmerited.
That he gives it only to some is by his will and free choice to do so, and no one can say to him, "What are you doing?" (Da 1:21, 4:17, 35).

 

[ReverendRV]

What Type of Calvinist Am I?
Your Result: Augustinian Calvinist

94%
Congratulations, you are the traditional 5 point Calvinist. You love studying God's Word and you are in love with everything about Saint Augustine (except for his views on infant baptism and the papacy).


90%
High Calvinist

81%
Reformed Presbyterian

70%
Reformed Baptist

58%
Hyper Calvinist

56%
Moderate Calvinist

46%
Dispensationalist Calvinist

4%
Low Calvinist
0%
Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian

What Type of Calvinist Am I?

www.gotoquiz.com

If anyone takes the quiz, don't forget to post the results here. I want to see how many of you Arminians are actually more Calvinist then you thought.

BUMP...

 

[Josheb]

88-91% High Calvinist (took the quiz a few times)

 

[Carbon]

Well God "touched" me. literally. He Chose me and I received the Holy Spirit. About 30 yrs later I received the second 'touch", that supercharged the Holy Spirit. God gave me that second touch after a pastor laid his hand on my head to pray for me. I'll cut and paste;

The Keswick movement, also called the Higher Life movement, is a theological movement that originated in England in the early 19th century. It was heavily influenced by the teachings of John Wesley, John William Fletcher, and Adam Clarke. Since 1875 promoters have organized the annual Keswick Convention. Various Christian leaders have been involved in the Keswick Convention through the years, including missionaries Hudson Taylor and Amy Carmichael, devotional writer Oswald Chambers, and evangelist Billy Graham.

Essentially, Keswick theology and Higher life movement teaches that the Christian life consists of two primary crises (or major turning points): justification and sanctification, both of which happen at different times in the life of the believer. After salvation one must have another encounter with the Spirit; otherwise, he or she will not progress into holiness or the “deeper” things of God. This second encounter with the Spirit, in Keswick terminology, is called “entire sanctification,” “the second blessing,” or “the second touch.” This emphasis on a second, post-salvation experience corresponds with the Pentecostal idea of the “baptism” of the Spirit. Some Keswick teachers would even say that sinless perfection is possible after one receives the “second blessing.”

Although it is true that both justification (i.e., getting saved) and sanctification (i.e., becoming more like Christ) are vital aspects of the Christian life, overemphasizing the distinction between them tends to produce two different “classes” of Christian—those who are not being sanctified and those who are being sanctified. Moreover, according to Keswick theology, we can decide which camp we belong in, and the initiation of sanctification is something that depends on us after we are saved.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Eleanor:

In reply to my statement, "Additionally, '...God commands all people everywhere to repent' (Acts 17:30). Can a man be spiritually born without repenting or reforming his life? If not, then we most certainly do have something to do prior to being born again. Our God does not force or compel anyone to be born again."—Buff.

You replied, in Post #125, "Indeed, he does, and only some do so, and for the same reason that only some are born again, the sovereign act of the Holy Spirit. The others do not want to and will not do so. God owes grace to no one, it is unmerited. That he gives it only to some is by his will and free choice to do so, and no one can say to him, 'What are you doing?' " (Da 1:21, 4:17, 35).

You also wrote, "Actually, if you have saving faith, you were already born again before you believed, born by sovereign act of the Holy Spirit depending on nothing but his sovereign choice, as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:3-8), as in God's choice of Jacob (Ro 9:10-12).

In light of the scriptures, Eleanor, this is so puzzling that the most brillient scholar in the world would have a problem trying to intrepret what you and the average Calvinist teaches. No offence, but your statements above boils down to nonsense. It is as gibberish and as confusing as were the languages of the "Tower of Babel." I think it is proper to label Calvinism's agenda, "Doctrinal Shenanigans." And this brings me to what I affirmed initially relative to Calvinism.
​

<><><>
​

"The ordinary Calvinist will jump from pillar to post when he sees himself between a theological rock and a creedal hard place, denying this and affirming that—and all in an effort to free himself. The average Calvinist is less than virtuous with his many-sided theology. I’m speaking from experience. There are exceptions, of course, but if my experiences with Calvinists at large embody any validity, the average Calvinist is less than ethical with his Calvinistic perspectives.

"I have dealt with various belief systems all of my life, but I must confess that the Calvinistic belief system is among the most perplexing and multicolored I’ve had the experience of encountering. It is not that I have failed to decipher and give fair research into the many-sided facets of Calvinism. I truly have. But irrespective of my efforts through the years to grasp the doctrinal goals and teachings of my Calvinist brothers, I am still at a loss to “tie this belief system down” to a specific order of comprehensible and consistent components."​

"This belief system is so vast, so detailed, so puzzling, so mystifying, and so cluttered with theological 'odds and ends' that hardly any two of its adherents can reach a rational consensus.

<><><>
​

There have been numerous occasions through the years when I have simply thrown up my hands in frustration when trying to decipher what my Calvinist brothers truly believe. I have almost reached that point again.

Have a good evening.​

​ ​

 

[ReverendRV]

Eleanor:

In reply to my statement, "Additionally, '...God commands all people everywhere to repent' (Acts 17:30). Can a man be spiritually born without repenting or reforming his life? If not, then we most certainly do have something to do prior to being born again. Our God does not force or compel anyone to be born again."—Buff.

You replied, in Post #125, "Indeed, he does, and only some do so, and for the same reason that only some are born again, the sovereign act of the Holy Spirit. The others do not want to and will not do so. God owes grace to no one, it is unmerited. That he gives it only to some is by his will and free choice to do so, and no one can say to him, 'What are you doing?' " (Da 1:21, 4:17, 35).

You also wrote, "Actually, if you have saving faith, you were already born again before you believed, born by sovereign act of the Holy Spirit depending on nothing but his sovereign choice, as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:3-8), as in God's choice of Jacob (Ro 9:10-12).

In light of the scriptures, Eleanor, this is so puzzling that the most brillient scholar in the world would have a problem trying to intrepret what you and the average Calvinist teaches. No offence, but your statements above boils down to nonsense. It is as gibberish and as confusing as were the languages of the "Tower of Babel." I think it is proper to label Calvinism's agenda, "Doctrinal Shenanigans." And this brings me to what I affirmed initially relative to Calvinism.
​

<><><>
​

"The ordinary Calvinist will jump from pillar to post when he sees himself between a theological rock and a creedal hard place, denying this and affirming that—and all in an effort to free himself. The average Calvinist is less than virtuous with his many-sided theology. I’m speaking from experience. There are exceptions, of course, but if my experiences with Calvinists at large embody any validity, the average Calvinist is less than ethical with his Calvinistic perspectives.

"I have dealt with various belief systems all of my life, but I must confess that the Calvinistic belief system is among the most perplexing and multicolored I’ve had the experience of encountering. It is not that I have failed to decipher and give fair research into the many-sided facets of Calvinism. I truly have. But irrespective of my efforts through the years to grasp the doctrinal goals and teachings of my Calvinist brothers, I am still at a loss to “tie this belief system down” to a specific order of comprehensible and consistent components."​

"This belief system is so vast, so detailed, so puzzling, so mystifying, and so cluttered with theological 'odds and ends' that hardly any two of its adherents can reach a rational consensus.

<><><>
​

There have been numerous occasions through the years when I have simply thrown up my hands in frustration when trying to decipher what my Calvinist brothers truly believe. I have almost reached that point again.

Have a good evening.​

​ ​

Buff, this is just an assertion without being supported...

People will read this and get a poisoned taste, without a reason to be poisoned. This isn't an undue assertion, but is based on your biased opinion. Please give good reasons Calvinism is wrong; instead of saying it's wrong...

 

[Eleanor]

BUMP...

What does that mean?

 

[Eleanor]

Eleanor:

In reply to my statement, "Additionally, '...God commands all people everywhere to repent' (Acts 17:30). Can a man be spiritually born without repenting or reforming his life? If not, then we most certainly do have something to do prior to being born again. Our God does not force or compel anyone to be born again."—Buff.
You replied, in Post #125, "Indeed, he does, and only some do so, and for the same reason that only some are born again, the sovereign act of the Holy Spirit. The others do not want to and will not do so. God owes grace to no one, it is unmerited. That he gives it only to some is by his will and free choice to do so, and no one can say to him, 'What are you doing?' " (Da 1:21, 4:17, 35).
You also wrote, "Actually, if you have saving faith, you were already born again before you believed, born by sovereign act of the Holy Spirit depending on nothing but his sovereign choice, as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:3-8), as in God's choice of Jacob (Ro 9:10-12).
​

In light of the scriptures, Eleanor, this is so puzzling that the most brillient scholar in the world would have a problem trying to intrepret what you and the average Calvinist teaches. No offence, but your statements above boils down to nonsense. It is as gibberish and as confusing as were the languages of the "Tower of Babel." I think it is proper to label Calvinism's agenda, "Doctrinal Shenanigans." And this brings me to what I affirmed initially relative to Calvinism.

I understand your conundrum, as do all "Calvinists."
Keeping in mind that our ways are not God's ways, and his thoughts are not our thoughts,
In fact, his ways are higher than our ways, and his thoughts are higher than our thoughts (Isa 55:8-9). To wit:

The NT reveals that, even though man's will is not free (Jn 8:34) and, therefore, he is unable to obey God (Ro 8:7), man is responsible for sin (Ro 39b, 14:12). So your question is how can that be? How can man be responsible for sin if he is unable to obey God?

An analogy is helpful here.
Suppose an invalid borrowed money from you on the promise that he would repay you from his inheritance at his father's death. The invalid has contracted a just debt, which he is responsible to pay. But suppose when the invalid comes into his inheritance, a con artist cons him out of the whole inheritance before his debt is paid, and the con artist is nowhere to be found. The invalid is still responsible for his just debt, although he is unable to pay. The principle here is that responsibility to pay is not based on ability to pay, but on what is justly owed.

The same is true spiritually. Responsibility to obey God is not based on man's ability to obey God, but on what man justly owes God. God is the center of the universe, not man (Rev 4:11). God is the potter who owns everything he has created (Ex 19:5, Dt 10:14, Job 41:11, Ps 24:1, 50:12, Eze 18:4), including man (Isa 45:9, Jer 18:6). He has a right to obedience from man (Lk 17:10) and, therefore, obedience is justly owed to him. Man's impotency does not release him from that just debt, because man's responsibility does not issue from his ability to pay, but from what he justly owes.

Now, while justice requires the invalid to pay his debt to you, justice will not be served in your case, because the invalid is unable to pay. However, with God, justice is always done. If we do not pay our debt (through Jesus Christ), we will be thrown into debtors' prison, even though we are powerless to pay it. Justice will be exacted of us to the last penny (Mt 5:26, 18:34) by God who is our adversary (Ro 5:10), with whom we are warned to settle our accounts before they come into his court of judgment (Mt 5:25).

So man is responsible for his sin (Mt 12:36), even though he is unable to obey God (Ro 8:7); and no conflict exists in justice between the responsibility of man and the impotency of man to obey God.

Now that being the case, God therefore enables some, the elect (Mk 13:20, 27, Ro 8:33, 1Th 1:4, 1 Pe 1:2, 2 Pe 1:10) by his sovereign will and choice, as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:3-8), but not all, to obey him.

That is the testimony of the NT with which you must reckon (and which "Calvinists" have).
And that is the light in which the following are understood:

"Indeed, he does (command all to repent), and only some do so, and for the same reason that only some are born again, the sovereign act of the Holy Spirit. The others do not want to and will not do so. God owes grace to no one, it is unmerited. That he gives it only to some is by his will and free choice to do so, and no one can say to him, 'What are you doing?' " (Da 1:21, 4:17, 35).

"Actually, if you have saving faith, you were already born again before you believed, born by sovereign act of the Holy Spirit, depending on nothing but his sovereign choice, as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:3-8), as in God's choice of Jacob (Ro 9:10-12).

 

[atpollard]

What does that mean?

"BUMP" moves a thread to the top of the list of "new posts". It is a way of calling attention to a thread that has gone dormant by falling off the page of new posts due to recent inactivity.

 

[Eleanor]

"BUMP" moves a thread to the top of the list of "new posts". It is a way of calling attention to a thread that has gone dormant by falling off the page of new posts due to recent inactivity.

Thanks, so the move takes place in another place.

How do you make that happen?

 

[atpollard]

Thanks, so the move takes place in another place.

How do you make that happen?

Whenever anyone posts, that post goes to the top of "What's new" (a tab at the top of the screen on my browser). Posting any message (including "bump") moves that message and Topic to the top of "What's new". A lot of people go to "What's new" to see ... what is new.

So the post will "bump" the quiet topic to the top of the list.

A related term is "Thread Necromancy" which is when someone responds to a topic that has been dormant for YEARS and "brings it back to life".

 

[fastfredy0]

Whenever anyone posts, that post goes to the top of "What's new" (a tab at the top of the screen on my browser). Posting any message (including "bump") moves that message and Topic to the top of "What's new". A lot of people go to "What's new" to see ... what is new.

So the post will "bump" the quiet topic to the top of the list.

A related term is "Thread Necromancy" which is when someone responds to a topic that has been dormant for YEARS and "brings it back to life".

NOTE: Typing "Don't BUMP this message" also bumps the message to the top.

 

[atpollard]

NOTE: Typing "Don't BUMP this message" also bumps the message to the top.

Finally, someone that can explain things clearer than can.

 

[Carbon]

What does that mean?

A bump is something that grows on the head after getting hit with a rolling pin.

 

[Eleanor]

Finally, someone that can explain things clearer than can.

Where do you type it on the message?

 

[Eleanor]

A bump is something that grows on the head after getting hit with a rolling pin.

Speaking from experience?