Different types of Calvinism

eternomade said:
Hyper-Calvinism:
Ultra High Calvinism:
High Calvinism:
Moderate Calvinism:
Low Calvinism:

Lutheranism:

American Baptist:
Arminianism
Click to expand...

It seems unhelpful to make these distinctions, as it is unnecessarily causing division.
Further, it seems pointless to distinguish "American Baptist" from "Arminianism", since not only is it factually incorrect (many American Baptists are Calvinists), but the difference is in eternal security. And the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism is based on soteriology, not eternal security. Not to mention that the Arminian position is not dogmatic on eternal security (read the 5 articles of the Remonstrance).
 
Theo1689 said:
It seems unhelpful to make these distinctions, as it is unnecessarily causing division.
Further, it seems pointless to distinguish "American Baptist" from "Arminianism", since not only is it factually incorrect (many American Baptists are Calvinists), but the difference is in eternal security. And the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism is based on soteriology, not eternal security. Not to mention that the Arminian position is not dogmatic on eternal security (read the 5 articles of the Remonstrance).
Click to expand...
The voice of reason , touché!
 
Ok so Jesus died only for men, not women.
Theo1689 said:
It seems unhelpful to make these distinctions, as it is unnecessarily causing division.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

Theo1689 said:
Further, it seems pointless to distinguish "American Baptist" from "Arminianism", since not only is it factually incorrect (many American Baptists are Calvinists), but the difference is in eternal security. And the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism is based on soteriology, not eternal security. Not to mention that the Arminian position is not dogmatic on eternal security (read the 5 articles of the Remonstrance).
Click to expand...
OK, like I said in the OP, this is not my material but thanks.
 
I’ve debated quite a few Hardshellers(AKA Primitive Baptists) on other forums who flatly deny the gospel is the means that God uses to save. They teach that God saves them and then the gospel brings their already received salvation to light. That’s flat out heresy, to deny the gospel is the means by which God saves. The gospel, in and of itself does not save, or everybody whoever heard it would be saved) but none are saved without it. What I mean by saying that the gospel in and of itself does not saves is that many of us(me included) heard it years before we were saved. But God moves through the proclamation of the gospel to save ppl.
 
To be fair to the Primitive Baptists, they (most of them, but I’m stopping short of all of them) hold to God saving ppl and then the gospel bringing that already accomplished salvation to light, but some do not hold to eternal justification. I have a friend who is a Moderator of an Old Regular Baptist Association, that goes by Primitive Baptists faith and practices, but that association flatly denies eternal justification. John Gill held to that view and most love to rad his commentary.
 
SovereignGrace said:
I’ve debated quite a few Hardshellers(AKA Primitive Baptists) on other forums who flatly deny the gospel is the means that God uses to save. They teach that God saves them and then the gospel brings their already received salvation to light. That’s flat out heresy, to deny the gospel is the means by which God saves. The gospel, in and of itself does not save, or everybody whoever heard it would be saved) but none are saved without it. What I mean by saying that the gospel in and of itself does not saves is that many of us(me included) heard it years before we were saved. But God moves through the proclamation of the gospel to save ppl.
Click to expand...
Sorry

You're still a hyper

Hello

"Hope this nexts, I mean nexts this hopes..arggghhh...Hope this helps!!!Next!! I have the troll on ignore that I assaulted and slandered with my gang for two weeks. How dare him correct me!"
 
civic said:
The person in this OP asked a question and I gave an actual answer to that question and didn't RUN AWAY from it ROFL like cough cough err you.
Click to expand...
Um, I answered it, pay attention. It is amazing and remarkable how hateful your responses have become after I publicly lined you out on your Romans 1 gaffe.
civic said:
My response is PERFECT to go above his number 1 on the list and bump it to number 2.
Click to expand...
No, it was intended to be inflammatory.
civic said:
Feeling guilty by chance ?
Click to expand...
False accusations don't make me feel guilty.
civic said:
oops.......................................
Click to expand...
Yes, you've failed again.
 
preacher4truth said:
I was surprised that Johnny Mac taught that Romans 1 teaches men can be saved by the light they have outside the knowledge of the Gospel. That isn't in the text and is extra‐biblical.
Click to expand...
I think that was taken out of context. I thought so, too, but went back and listened and read the transcript, and think that was nit what he stated. I will have to look that up again.
 
preacher4truth said:
I was surprised that Johnny Mac taught that Romans 1 teaches men can be saved by the light they have outside the knowledge of the Gospel. That isn't in the text and is extra‐biblical.
Click to expand...
I’d like to look into that.

I think he’s off with his dispensationalism but I thought his soteriology was good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top