Different types of Calvinism

So you are a universalist?
Oh No absolutely not

how do you come with such conclusions without making unbiblical assumptions?

and why do you ignore scripture which plainly shows Christ died for all who went astray

Isaiah 53:6 (KJV)
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
 
Oh No absolutely not

how do you come with such conclusions without making unbiblical assumptions?
You keep saying Jesus died for all, but that means all are saved. The only person who believes that is the universalist.
and why do you ignore scripture which plainly shows Christ died for all who went astray
That isn't what it says. Isaiah wasn't writing to everyone, but to a select audience. All we like sheep have gone astray. we have turned every one [of that we] to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isaiah's audience is whom this message is for... the house of Israel.
Isaiah 53:6 (KJV)
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
 
You keep saying Jesus died for all, but that means all are saved....
Christ died for all; it pleases God to save those who believe.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
 
Christ died for all; it pleases God to save those who believe.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Have you read the Bible? (Just a little frustrated here.) Ephesians is quite clear that we are saved through Christ. Paul was quite clear. And we are saved by His death. If He died for all, then all are saved. Do you really wish to cheapen what He did?
 
Have you read the Bible? (Just a little frustrated here.)
Frustrated by your own freewill, or frustrated by God's meticulous decree?

Ephesians is quite clear that we are saved through Christ. Paul was quite clear.
Who says otherwise; through whom else are we to be saved?

And we are saved by His death.
Biblically, we are reconciled by his death and saved by his life:
Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

If He died for all, then all are saved...
He died for all; it pleases God to save those who believe.
1Cor 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Provide scripture which states Christ's death saves before anyone believes.
 
He died for all; it pleases God to save those who believe.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

"He died for all."

and,

"He died for all who believe"

are completely DIFFERENT statements.
Both can't be true at the same time.
So which one is true, and which one is false?
 
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

"He died for all."

and,

"He died for all who believe"

are completely DIFFERENT statements.
Both can't be true at the same time.
So which one is true, and which one is false?
They are both true; Christ died for all, and saves those who believe.
Where's scripture which states Christ's death saves.
 
Frustrated by your own freewill, or frustrated by God's meticulous decree?


Who says otherwise; through whom else are we to be saved?


Biblically, we are reconciled by his death and saved by his life:
Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.


He died for all; it pleases God to save those who believe.
1Cor 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Provide scripture which states Christ's death saves before anyone believes.
Romans 5 "7 Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man—though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die. 8 But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God."

Do you understand why I say you are cheapening Christ? All that verse means in I Cor 1:21 is that even though God has chosen us, and we will be saved, he ordained that we would reach that point of salvation, we would be saved, through the foolishness of preaching. Why call it the foolishness of preaching? Technically, if we went along with arminians on this in talking about this calvinist talking point, since God chose us, so we are going to be saved, then why do we have to do anything at all? I Corinthians 1:21...because God decided to do that. Why? You would have to ask Him.

Isaiah does not say we are healed by Christ's resurrection, but by His sacrifice, His death. For by His stripes, we are healed. You do realize that if you are reconciled, you are saved right? And the visible representation of that is that God raised Him from the dead. If God did not, then that would mean that God was not pleased by the sacrifice of His Son. I am not sure why you believe that if we are reconciled, such as the prodigal son going home and reconciling with his father, that we can go to hell, that's even worse then those here pushing neo-apollinarianism and calling Jesus sacrifice cosmic child abuse. Jesus death is not a point in time. Any man could die for another, but that will NEVER atone or wash away any sin. Only the death of one who could, as I like to put it, crack the walls of eternity as the perfect sinless sacrifice, could save anyone at all. God provided that. God is patiently waiting for all those He has chosen to repent and be saved, and then the world will end. (You will find that in Peter's epistles.)
 
I took these definitions from a post on the puritan board.

So it is one man's opinion.
And so highly unauthoritative.

Hyper-Calvinism: Beliefs: God is the author of sin and man has no responsibility before God. The Gospel should only preached to the elect. i.e. duty faith. and anti-missionary Belief in the five points is a prerequisite for true salvation, also known as Neo-Gnostic Calvinism. Proponents: Joseph Hussey John Skepp and some English primitive Baptists.

The theology known as "hyper-Calvinism" is rejected among Calvinists. It is unfair to lump it in the umbrella of "Calvinism"

Ultra High Calvinism: Beliefs: That the elect are in some sense eternally justified. A denial of: The Well– Meant Offer; Common Grace; and God having any love for the non-elect. Proponents: John Gill, some ministers in the Protestant Reformed Church of America

High Calvinism: Beliefs: That God in no sense desires to save the reprobate, Most deny the Well-Meant Offer. Supralapsarian viewing God’s decrees. All hold to limited atonement. Most believe in particular grace and see the atonement as sufficient only for the elect. Proponents: Theodore Beza, Gordon Clark, Arthur Pink

I don't think it cut-and-dry to make a distinction between these two. You yourself identify yourself as between the two. So what exactly is the difference between the two? It seems only useful to make them separate categories for those who wish to be gratuitously divisive.

Moderate Calvinism: Beliefs: That God does in some sense desires to save the reprobate, Infralapsarian in viewing God’s decrees. Affirms Common Grace. Proponents: John Calvin (some argue that he was a High-Calvinist), John Murray, RL Dabney

"Modeeratee Calvinism" seems to be a less-than-useful category invented (seemingly) by Norm Geisler, to try to identify himself as "Calvinist" even though he really isn't. Perhaps it was an excuse to avoid being seen as a "hostile witness" to Calvinism.


Low Calvinism: Beliefs: That Christ died for all in a legal sense, so one can speak of Christ dying for the non-elect. That God has two distinct wills. Affirms the Well-Meant Offer and Common Grace, Proponents: Amyraldrians , RT Kendal

Amyrauldians are those who reject Limited Atonement, but hold to the other 4 points. Since those on both sides have agreed that the 5 points stand together or fall together, I would classify them as "inconsistent Calvinists". The "L" is usually the last point Calvinists end up accepting.

Lutheranism: Beliefs: That Calvinist over emphasize God Sovereignty over man’s responsibility. That Christ died for all in legal sense, that some are predestined on to life but none are predestined onto death. That the sacraments are means of grace regardless of one’s faith. Proponents: Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, Rod Rosenbladt

I don't think this is warranted to be included in the umbrella of "Calvinism". But I understand why those who would want to present Calvinism as "fragmented" and "inconsistent" would wish to include it.

American Baptist: Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. Once a persons believes the gospel, he is eternally secure. Rejects Calvinism, some would even call it heretical. Proponents: Jerry Falwell, Adrian Rogers

This is plainly inaccurate and based on ignorance. There are MANY American Baptist churches who are Calvinistic, James White's previous church (Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church) and his current church (Apologia) being just two of them.

Even among the Souther Baptist Convention (SBC), there is a significant number of Calvinist churches (eg. Tom Ascol). A recent poll determined that at least 10% of churches in the SBC are Calvinist. This is not surprising, since neither the "Baptist" faith in general nor the SBC "Baptist Faith and Message" list a specific positition on soteriology. Baptists are defined mainly by mode (immersion) and recipients (believers) of baptism.


Arminianism Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is solely based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. A person can fall from the state of grace i.e. lose ones salvation, since it is our free will that chooses Christ at conversion. Proponents: Jacob Arminius, John Wesley some Methodists

Arminian is not Calvinism pretty much by definition.
 
So it is one man's opinion.
And so highly unauthoritative.



The theology known as "hyper-Calvinism" is rejected among Calvinists. It is unfair to lump it in the umbrella of "Calvinism"



I don't think it cut-and-dry to make a distinction between these two. You yourself identify yourself as between the two. So what exactly is the difference between the two? It seems only useful to make them separate categories for those who wish to be gratuitously divisive.



"Modeeratee Calvinism" seems to be a less-than-useful category invented (seemingly) by Norm Geisler, to try to identify himself as "Calvinist" even though he really isn't. Perhaps it was an excuse to avoid being seen as a "hostile witness" to Calvinism.




Amyrauldians are those who reject Limited Atonement, but hold to the other 4 points. Since those on both sides have agreed that the 5 points stand together or fall together, I would classify them as "inconsistent Calvinists". The "L" is usually the last point Calvinists end up accepting.



I don't think this is warranted to be included in the umbrella of "Calvinism". But I understand why those who would want to present Calvinism as "fragmented" and "inconsistent" would wish to include it.



This is plainly inaccurate and based on ignorance. There are MANY American Baptist churches who are Calvinistic, James White's previous church (Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church) and his current church (Apologia) being just two of them.

Even among the Souther Baptist Convention (SBC), there is a significant number of Calvinist churches (eg. Tom Ascol). A recent poll determined that at least 10% of churches in the SBC are Calvinist. This is not surprising, since neither the "Baptist" faith in general nor the SBC "Baptist Faith and Message" list a specific positition on soteriology. Baptists are defined mainly by mode (immersion) and recipients (belie
Thank you for making me think.
 
Last edited:
So somehow Jesus died for all, but He didn't die for all?
Great question! IF Jesus died for all, why this:

2 Timothy 2
24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; IF God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

I ask because God brought me out of Mormonism. :unsure:
 
Grat question!. IF Jesus died for all, why this:

2 Timothy 2
24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; IF God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

I ask because God brought me out of Mormonism. :unsure:
What are you asking Janice? I missed it...
 
That is an important part of it but also includes His burial and Resurrection from the dead as we read in 1 Cor 15 and Roman’s 10 9-13. If we believe in our heart and confess with our mouth Jesus is Lord and God raised Him from the dead we shall be saved .
Do you think the new birth is temporary?
 
Do you think the new birth is temporary?
Take 5 Minutes to read this Janice...

Calling God a Liar ~ by Reverend RV

Titus 1:2 BSB; in hope of Eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began,

Imagine what our life would be like if God could lie. In Norse mythology Loki is a trickster, the god of mischief. The Bible calls Satan the god of this world, the father of lies. A god wouldn’t be worth having if you could trust him no more than you can trust yourself. God gave us the Ten Commandments and he said ‘thou shalt not Lie’; have you ever told a lie? Then you would have something in common with these worldly gods; you would be a liar. ~ One of the worse Sins you could commit is to call God a liar. How close in severity would this compare to the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? The similarities boggle the mind! The Bible teaches us that God is Holy, Holy, Holy; the ultimate expression of Holiness; it also teaches us it’s way easier to call God a Liar than you might think. Here’s one way we can call God a Liar; “We accept human testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God; testimony he has given about his Son. Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they haven’t believed the testimony God has given about his Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us Eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.” Praise God!

The Apostle John tells us that if we do not believe God has given Christ’s followers Eternal Life, we make God out to be a Liar. John says that God has ‘testified’ that he has given Christians Eternal life and this life is in Jesus! Elsewhere Jesus said that he himself gives those who believe on him Eternal life and no one can snatch them out of his hand. Jesus says that a believer ‘has’ Eternal life and will not be condemned, he has passed from death to life. Is it easier to say that Jesus is lying than it is to say that his Father Jehovah is lying then? I would say not, because Jesus said that he only spoke what he heard his Father say. Jesus says this about those who are in his hand, ‘My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.” To call Jesus here a Liar is a round-about way to also call his Father a liar…

Do you find Eternal life attractive? Then you must also find God’s son attractive. Since lying is a Sin you must repent of it and through Faith follow Jesus Christ. If you Repent of your wicked ways and follow the risen Christ, he will Save you from the due penalty of your Sins; which is an eternity in Hell. God accepts you in part because of Christ’s good standing before the LORD; which by the Grace of God through Faith in Jesus Christ is now your good standing. ~ Since not believing that God has given Christians Eternal life makes him out to be a Liar, isn't it true that not believing you would spend Eternity in Hell for unforgiven Sins also make God a Liar?

John 5:24 ESV; Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
 
Take 5 Minutes to read this Janice...

John 5:24
ESV; Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
I think we're on the same page. I spend most of my time refuting Mormonism, but I don't recall disagreeing with you about anything.
 
Back
Top