Any Calvinists on the board?

[GracieJane]

I’m curious:

1. Are you Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, any other?

2. Have you always been part of the Reformed tradition? Were you raised in it?

3. Do you believe in double predestination?

4. Are you raising your children reformed?

 

[Slache]

1. Baptist.

2. No. No.

3. Yes.

4. Yes, but since we homeschool I have the opportunity to expose them to many alternative views.

[ScoutTN]

1. Presbyterian

2. No and no.

3. Sort of. The term is a poor one and not helpful, imo.

4. Yes, though we certainly discuss many varieties of Christian theology. (as well as many worldviews generally)

Edited June 22, 2021 by ScoutTN

[sassenach]

1. non-denom

2. raised catholic, bounced around EV-free and other non-denom churches. Landed in my current understanding over time. My church would not label itself reformed but that's generally the framework it operates out of. 

3. had to google. On its face, no. I would have to really study the scripture around the argument for it before saying anything definitive. I'm not very motivated to do a deep dive on it though because I doubt drawing a conclusion would benefit my ministry or my life.

4. Yes? I do not think of reformed as the be-all-end-all in walking with Christ. It's the theological framework that best describes my understanding of scripture. I try to give my kids the most accurate teaching that I can but I'm not militant about reformed theology. 

[Ellie]

51 minutes ago, GracieJane said:

I’m curious:

1. Are you Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, any other?
DH was raised Southern Baptist. He is now more inclined to Charismatic/Pentecostal, which tend to NOT be Calvinistic.

2. Have you always been part of the Reformed tradition? Were you raised in it?
He never heard of "Reformed tradition." I had never heard of it until I started homeschooling and met some Reformed Baptists folks, and they are nothing like Southern Baptist. Well, maybe in some ways, but Southern Baptist doesn't seem to be as extreme as Reformed Baptist. I am unfamiliar with other "Reformed" denominations; he doesn't know of any that refer to themselves as Reformed.

3. Do you believe in double predestination?
He doesn't know what that even is.

4. Are you raising your children reformed?
See above, so, no.

 

 

[cintinative]

58 minutes ago, GracieJane said:

I’m curious:

1. Are you Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, any other?

 

 

This question confuses me. None of these denominations are typically Calvinist.

[GracieJane]

1 minute ago, cintinative said:

This question confuses me. None of these denominations are typically Calvinist.

In what sense are they not? They all share a common belief in predestination, which is arguably the central tenet of Calvinism.

 

[Danae]

3 minutes ago, GracieJane said:

In what sense are they not? They all share a common belief in predestination, which is arguably the central tenet of Calvinism.

 

In darn near every sense, and no, they do not.

 

[GracieJane]

23 minutes ago, Danae said:

In darn near every sense, and no, they do not.

 

Okay. They do not. None of the people in these denominations believe in predestination, so none of them will show up in this thread. Thank you for your thoughts!

Edited June 22, 2021 by GracieJane

[cintinative]

33 minutes ago, GracieJane said:

In what sense are they not? They all share a common belief in predestination, which is arguably the central tenet of Calvinism.

 

I don't consider a church Calvinist unless they subscribe to all five points: total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints. 

ETA; Maybe others will disagree, but I feel that a definition of what you mean is sort of important.

Edited June 22, 2021 by cintinative

[MrsMommy]

36 minutes ago, cintinative said:

This question confuses me. None of these denominations are typically Calvinist.

I can't speak for the other denominations, but I agree...Lutherans are definitely not Calvinists.

[GracieJane]

3 minutes ago, cintinative said:

I don't consider a church Calvinist unless they subscribe to all five points: total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints. 

ETA; Maybe others will disagree, but I feel that a definition of what you mean is sort of important.

Okay. I was asking self-identifying Calvinists on this board to which denomination they belong. So they are free to answer whatever denomination they call home. Thanks!

[MercyA]

I am not a Calvinist, but I did attend a Reformed Independent Baptist church in California for a couple years. They were five-point Calvinists. I believe they called themselves "Baptist" to emphasize that they practiced believers' baptism rather than infant baptism. Their sister church was Presbyterian. 

In my experience, most Baptists believe in eternal security (what Calvinists would call perseverance of the saints). However, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many Baptists who say anyone is predestined to perish or who believe in limited atonement. 

I've never heard of Anglican or Lutheran Calvinists. I'm not saying individual ones don't exist, but their official church doctrine definitely doesn't jive with Calvinism.

I belong to a Wesleyan church, an off-shoot of the Methodist church. We are not Calvinist.

Edited June 22, 2021 by MercyA

[MercyA]

You can believe in predestination without being a Calvinist. 

[GracieJane]

1 minute ago, MercyA said:

You can believe in predestination without being a Calvinist. 

Interesting! I’ve only known Calvinists to believe in singular or double predestination. Arminians believe in God’s infallible knowledge but not in His predetermining who will be saved. 

[MercyA]

1 minute ago, GracieJane said:

Interesting! I’ve only known Calvinists to believe in singular or double predestination. Arminians believe in God’s infallible knowledge but not in His predetermining who will be saved. 

I believe everything in Scripture is true. Thus I believe that at least some are predestined, either to special roles or to salvation, and that predestination is not based on merit.

However, I also believe in free will, in universal salvation (open to all), and in the possibility of falling away from the faith. 

I believe that God knows everything there is to know, but that the future is still open and not entirely predetermined. We see this in places in Scripture which indicate that God changed His mind or even repented of certain actions.

I don't have to try to make it all fit into any particular theological system or to understand it all. So much is a great mystery!

[GracieJane]

6 minutes ago, MercyA said:

I believe everything in Scripture is true. Thus I believe that at least some are predestined, either to special roles or to salvation, and that predestination is not based on merit.

However, I also believe in free will, in universal salvation (open to all), and in the possibility of falling away from the faith. 

I believe that God knows everything there is to know, but that the future is still open and not entirely predetermined. We see this in places in Scripture which indicate that God changed His mind or even repented of certain actions.

I don't have to try to make it all fit into any particular theological system or to understand it all. So much is a great mystery!

So if I’m understanding correctly, you do not believe in Limited Atonement, correct? Jesus only dying for the Elect?

[MercyA]

14 minutes ago, GracieJane said:

So if I’m understanding correctly, you do not believe in Limited Atonement, correct? Jesus only dying for the Elect?

I do not.

[PeterPan]

1 hour ago, GracieJane said:

In what sense are they not? They all share a common belief in predestination, which is arguably the central tenet of Calvinism.

 

Maybe read a little bit more to sort this out. Calvin had his 5 points, Wesley had his 5, and you have denominations or people who will hold any number of either or both. So the running joke is that a baptist is 3 parts calvinist, 2 parts arminian (or flip that, depending on the church). When someone holds to *all 5* points, they would be called a hyper-calvinist or hyper-arminian. And while I have roughly assumed most reformed would hold to all 5 points of calvinism, I'm not sure that's absolutely true. And there are reformed baptist, reformed presybterian, etc.

https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Theology-Systematic-Understanding-Biblical/dp/0802427340/ref=sr_1_3?crid=27G3WN6D9JJT5&dchild=1&keywords=ryrie+basic+theology&qid=1624323544&sprefix=ryrie+b%2Caps%2C182&sr=8-3  Here's an accessible text (not as rough as a full systematic theology) that would help you sort out your questions and be a nice reference. If you like Grudem or someone else, knock yourself out. 

The Bible professors where I went to school used to get on people coming from a very baptist or more heavily arminian background, because they would cringe and assume that they "didn't believe" in predestination, etc. because they were being taught by a presbyterian, when in fact it was that they hadn't been taught. 

http://graceonlinelibrary.org/reformed-theology/arminianism/calvinism-vs-arminianism-comparison-chart/

I think the differences may be more nuanced than you are allowing for. In fact, if you look at this Wikipedia, you see arminian usage of predestination, Wesley writing on it, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism  

Maybe you were thinking of *election* not predestination?  

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/charles-spurgeon-calvinism-unconditional-election/  If you want a little fun, here's Spurgeon. 

 

Edited June 22, 2021 by PeterPan

[PeterPan]

2 hours ago, GracieJane said:

Do you believe in double predestination?

What Sproul/Ligonier is calling double predestination has typically been called reprobation. Calvin wrote about it and you can read his arguments for yourself and see what you think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_in_Calvinism  

Personally, I think it's an error of logic, ie. extending logically instead of allowing for the tension of Scripture. God asks to juggle many things at once, like that we both have free will and are predestined, that He is One made up of Three, etc. To me, what I'm looking for when I ask a question about doctrine or application is whether the person went BEYOND what the Scripture actually says. I know someone can get there logically, but does it SAY that or does it hold back from going quite that far?

These kinds of tensions occur in other areas too, not just soteriology. People debate theories of counseling, for instance, and the new fad is to say that because the scripture/Christ addresses xyz (anxiety, attention, whatever) that it is an exhaustive statement on it. Ie. if Christ says not to be anxious, then you CAN stop being anxious and that if you don't stop you are SINNING. So they walk themselves into a *logic* argument, that wasn't said by Christ, that there are NO MEDICAL CAUSES and that you are ALWAYS sinning. I kid you not. And you know in your gut that's crazy but they do this in sincerity by going just that *one step* farther than what the Scripture says.

So me personally, I've read Calvin, read Wesley, and I think they were men trying to sort stuff out. You can read their stuff and decide for yourselves. I think we have heads on our shoulders and the Spirit in our hearts. Mainly, just stick with what the Scripture actually says and allow for the tension and you'll be fine.

[AngelaR]

1.  Presbyterian Church of America. 
2.  No, I was raised Southern Baptist. The Southern Baptists I know are not Calvinists. They are Arminian. 
3. Never heard of double predestination until your question.  
4.  Yes;  as much as possible, but with being military, at times it’s difficult to find a Reformed church near where we get stationed. But as much as it depends on me, I try to. 

Why do you ask?

 

[PeterPan]

25 minutes ago, AngelaR said:

No, I was raised Southern Baptist. The Southern Baptists I know are not Calvinists. They are Arminian. 

There's been a big shift in the Southern Baptist convention over the last 10-15+ years. 

26 minutes ago, AngelaR said:

Never heard of double predestination until your question.

Agreed, I don't think 5 point calvinists I know feel the need to go all the way to reprobation. 

[purpleowl]

I am a Calvinist. Presbyterian (OPC). 

I was raised Southern Baptist. That's not typically considered part of the Reformed tradition, though in my opinion, the Southern Baptist view on the sovereignty of God is logically consistent with a Calvinist viewpoint. But most people I know in the SBC do not consider themselves Calvinists.

The high school I graduated from was owned by a Presbyterian (PCA) church, so Reformed teachings were part of my upbringing. But I was 24 (I think) when DH and I left the Southern Baptist church we were part of and moved to a Reformed church. 

Wikipedia's comment below (from here) fits with my thoughts on "double predestination": 

"Double predestination is not the view of any of the Reformed confessions, which speak of God passing over rather than actively reprobating the damned."

 

Yes, we are teaching our kids what we believe is true. Just like any other parent does with their beliefs. 😉

[Slache]

I had not heard of double predestination either.

As a Baptist, I do not find the term Baptist very helpful. We are all so different. I am an Independent Fundamental Baptist and would have a lot of theological disagreements with other types of Baptists.

[PeterPan]

Just now, Slache said:

I had not heard of double predestination either.

Yeah, you'd have to get to a grad level course or be reading a Systematic Theology before you'd dig into stuff like that. But I think this term double predestination is being coined more recently, as it has historically been called reprobation. 

https://www.amazon.com/Sermons-Election-Reprobation-John-Calvin/dp/0963255797/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=calvin+on+reprobation&qid=1624327394&sr=8-2  Here, she can go to the source. 

[Slache]

Just now, PeterPan said:

Yeah, you'd have to get to a grad level course or be reading a Systematic Theology before you'd dig into stuff like that. But I think this term double predestination is being coined more recently, as it has historically been called reprobation. 

https://www.amazon.com/Sermons-Election-Reprobation-John-Calvin/dp/0963255797/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=calvin+on+reprobation&qid=1624327394&sr=8-2  Here, she can go to the source. 

Ryrie's Systematic Theology is on my list. As a Calvinist I actually don't love Calvin...

[Resilient]

I'm interested in why you ask.

And I think you will learn a lot from the responses on this thread.  

[PeterPan]

35 minutes ago, Slache said:

Ryrie's Systematic Theology is on my list. As a Calvinist I actually don't love Calvin...

Yes, if you're IFB or GARB or some kind of baptist, Ryrie should be a good fit. We read it for undergrad, and then for grad school were reading across multiple systematics (Strong, Hodge, Grudem etc.) and older sources as historically appropriate. I'm not a fan of Grudem or the movements he's in. 

https://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-Study-Bible-Hardcover/dp/1433553376/ref=sr_1_13?dchild=1&keywords=systematic+theology&qid=1624329779&sr=8-13 This might interest you.

https://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-3-Charles-Hodge/dp/1565634594/ref=sr_1_14?dchild=1&keywords=systematic+theology&qid=1624329779&sr=8-14

https://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Doctrine-Systematic-Summary-Bible/dp/1433545918/ref=sr_1_5?dchild=1&keywords=systematic+theology&qid=1624329779&sr=8-5  I haven't read this one but it's probably interesting. 

So Ryrie is a few hundred pages, very accessible, and a full systematic will be 1000 pages, rough stuff. The challenge in reading older systematics is just that the language is really old. If you're coming from the KJV, it's probably within reach. But I think that's why you see the trend toward new ones.  This MacArthur is looking pretty good as I skim the samples. It's readable and that's a factor. If you want to fall in the weeds, it could be a good option. If you just want enough to make you informed without getting lost in controversies, stick with Ryrie, lol.

[J-rap]

I'm a Lutheran (well, raised Lutheran, but attending a non-denominational church now), and you're right -- Lutherans are not Calvinists.

Actually, my current church has one staff member who believes in open theism...  Meaning that God knows all of the possible outcomes, and surely knows exactly the outcome of His creation, but He doesn't always know ahead of time which particular path we may take to get there (God is surprised sometimes, and changes His mind sometimes too).  That was the way He chose to create our world.

 

[Slache]

2 hours ago, PeterPan said:

Yes, if you're IFB or GARB or some kind of baptist, Ryrie should be a good fit. We read it for undergrad, and then for grad school were reading across multiple systematics (Strong, Hodge, Grudem etc.) and older sources as historically appropriate. I'm not a fan of Grudem or the movements he's in. 

https://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-Study-Bible-Hardcover/dp/1433553376/ref=sr_1_13?dchild=1&keywords=systematic+theology&qid=1624329779&sr=8-13 This might interest you.

https://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-3-Charles-Hodge/dp/1565634594/ref=sr_1_14?dchild=1&keywords=systematic+theology&qid=1624329779&sr=8-14

https://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Doctrine-Systematic-Summary-Bible/dp/1433545918/ref=sr_1_5?dchild=1&keywords=systematic+theology&qid=1624329779&sr=8-5  I haven't read this one but it's probably interesting. 

So Ryrie is a few hundred pages, very accessible, and a full systematic will be 1000 pages, rough stuff. The challenge in reading older systematics is just that the language is really old. If you're coming from the KJV, it's probably within reach. But I think that's why you see the trend toward new ones.  This MacArthur is looking pretty good as I skim the samples. It's readable and that's a factor. If you want to fall in the weeds, it could be a good option. If you just want enough to make you informed without getting lost in controversies, stick with Ryrie, lol.

Thanks! I'm KJV. I like McArthur and also have Wilmington's Guide.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I am a four point Calvinist who is not Reformed.  There is more to Reformed theology than TULIP. 

[AngelaR]

3 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

I am a four point Calvinist who is not Reformed.  There is more to Reformed theology than TULIP. 

I’m curious. Would you mind elaborating?  I have never been to seminary and the only theological teaching I got was in the various PCA churches I attended over a span of 15 years.  Thus, it was my understanding that if one subscribed to a majority of TULIP, one was Reformed.  Apparently I need to be educated on what being Reformed means:  I was in a Reformed Homeschool FB group for a while and was genuinely surprised to encounter ladies who subscribed to head-covering (all the time, not just in church).  I wasn’t aware that was a part of Reformed Theology. Clearly, I need an expanded view of what it means to be Reformed. 

[LauraClark]

I think you're asking if we believe in predestination rather than Calvinism. I think Calvin got things wrong, but I do believe in predestination (although, like @PeterPan said: in tension). I'll answer under the assumption you're asking about predestination:

 

1. We are members of a Baptist church, but the church itself varies in their beliefs. We've been in non denominational churches in the past.

2. Reformed, yes. A church believing predestination, no

3. Doing a quick Google search, no? But I haven't looked at it enough (and have no desire to) to make an informed answer

4. Don't we all raise our children in the beliefs we think are true? We would be cruel to raise them in beliefs we think are false.

[ScoutTN]

47 minutes ago, AngelaR said:

I’m curious. Would you mind elaborating?  I have never been to seminary and the only theological teaching I got was in the various PCA churches I attended over a span of 15 years.  Thus, it was my understanding that if one subscribed to a majority of TULIP, one was Reformed.  Apparently I need to be educated on what being Reformed means:  I was in a Reformed Homeschool FB group for a while and was genuinely surprised to encounter ladies who subscribed to head-covering (all the time, not just in church).  I wasn’t aware that was a part of Reformed Theology. Clearly, I need an expanded view of what it means to be Reformed. 

Reformed churches usually have a very high view of Scripture (inspired, inerrant, infallible), a strong emphasis on the sovereignty of God, exegetical preaching, an emphasis on the unity of Scripture and continuity between OT and NT, do not hold to premillenial eschatological views (tending strongly to amillenial or postmillenial views with a few scattered historic premill), among other things.

RC Sproul has a great little booklet on Reformed Theology. 
 

Reformed churches are confessional and generally hold to the Westminster Standards or some other historic, confessional document. 

[cintinative]

I had never heard of double predestination before this thread. Here is what R.C. Sproul says about it and how it is rejected by Reformed Theology.

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/double-predestination/

The distortion of double predestination looks like this: There is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation. God works in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity God decreed some to election and by divine initiative works faith in their hearts and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative. In the case of the elect, regeneration is the monergistic work of God. In the case of the reprobate, sin and degeneration are the monergistic work of God. Stated another way, we can establish a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry. We can call this a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.

This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.

[ScoutTN]

Who ate your favorite reformed preachers or authors?

Preachers: Ligon Duncan, Tim Keller (though he is progressive within the PCA and I am not), Michael Horton, Alastair Begg.

Authors: J. I. Packer, R.C. Sproul.

Calvin’s Institutes are not teally difficult reading. Very devotional. I find him easier than Luther, by far. 

[GracieJane]

41 minutes ago, cintinative said:

I had never heard of double predestination before this thread. Here is what R.C. Sproul says about it and how it is rejected by Reformed Theology.

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/double-predestination/

The distortion of double predestination looks like this: There is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation. God works in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity God decreed some to election and by divine initiative works faith in their hearts and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative. In the case of the elect, regeneration is the monergistic work of God. In the case of the reprobate, sin and degeneration are the monergistic work of God. Stated another way, we can establish a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry. We can call this a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.

This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.

R.C. Sproul is here rejecting the distortion of double predestination, not the doctrine itself, which is (according to this article) a Reformed belief.

ETA: “[...] epithets have been used frequently to articulate displeasure and revulsion at the Reformed doctrine of double predestination. Particularly abhorrent to many is the notion that God would predestinate (in any sense) the doom of the reprobate.” - from the article.

Sproul thinks people don’t understand double predestination (or distort its meaning).

 

 

Edited June 22, 2021 by GracieJane

[cintinative]

27 minutes ago, GracieJane said:

R.C. Sproul is here rejecting the distortion of double predestination, not the doctrine itself, which is (according to this article) a Reformed belief.

I guess I see what you are saying, but he is rejecting the symmetrical nature of "positive-positive" predestination. He is saying that this symmetrical/parallel way of viewing it is not Reformed, only the "positive-negative" view is held.  Again, I have never heard of it referred to as double predestination probably because from a semantics point of view that would seem to imply the double positive.

The Reformed View of Predestination

"In sharp contrast to the caricature of double predestination seen in the positive-positive schema is the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. In this view predestination is double in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather we view predestination in terms of a positive-negative relationship. In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives.  . . 

Edited June 22, 2021 by cintinative

[PeterPan]

5 minutes ago, GracieJane said:

R.C. Sproul is here rejecting the distortion of double predestination, not the doctrine itself, which is (according to this article) a Reformed belief.

So I’m confused. In plain English, does he hold to reprobation (elect to damnation) or not? I thought I was reading this article to say reprovation is a distortion of predestination. But you’re saying he agrees with reprobation but not distortions of reprobation?

[PeterPan]

1 minute ago, cintinative said:

Again, I have never heard of it referred to as double predestination probably because from a semantics point of view that would seem to imply the double positive.

Or because he coined the term himself. The term is reprobation, but that would mean exactly what it’s saying. I think it’s helpful that he’s showing the logic of the error and how you could get there. It’s a question students naturally ask as they dig in to theology because it is such a logical leap.

Another thing we realized in school was that these men of the past did not have the computerized study tools to search out terms so quickly and easily. It puts their efforts in context.

[PeterPan]

9 minutes ago, cintinative said:

grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves.

See this is why I don’t like most of these new dudes. They just aren’t careful. You can’t support biblically that God leaves the unsaved and those who reject him without grace. The opposite is shown clearly. He’s narrowing the term to fit his theology instead of letting the Bible say what it says (that tension ).

Or put another way there are definitions of grace, subsets , etc.

Edited June 22, 2021 by PeterPan

[GracieJane]

5 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

So I’m confused. In plain English, does he hold to reprobation (elect to damnation) or not? I thought I was reading this article to say reprovation is a distortion of predestination. But you’re saying he agrees with reprobation but not distortions of reprobation?

Sproul would hold that God works positively (monergism) to regenerate those He chooses and negatively (withholding this grace from) the reprobate.

[PeterPan]

2 minutes ago, GracieJane said:

Sproul would hold that God works positively (monergism) to regenerate those He chooses and negatively (withholding this grace from) the reprobate.

Which is why I’m not reformed lol. 

[MercyA]

6 hours ago, ScoutTN said:

Reformed churches usually have a very high view of Scripture (inspired, inerrant, infallible), a strong emphasis on the sovereignty of God, exegetical preaching, an emphasis on the unity of Scripture and continuity between OT and NT, do not hold to premillenial eschatological views (tending strongly to amillenial or postmillenial views with a few scattered historic premill), among other things.

Yes. This is why we attended one for two years and loved it dearly, in spite of being firmly NOT in the Calvinist camp. 

There is no perfect church. They are full of people. 🙂 

Edited June 22, 2021 by MercyA

[KrissiK]

1. Was raised and am attending a Mennonite Brethren Church, that is in no way Calvinist, though our pastor has Calvinist leanings. We attended a Presbyterian Church (EPC) for 10 years and I am theologically a Presbyterian and love the Presbyterian church.

2. No. No.

3. No.

4. Yes

[Jean in Newcastle]

5 hours ago, AngelaR said:

I’m curious. Would you mind elaborating?  I have never been to seminary and the only theological teaching I got was in the various PCA churches I attended over a span of 15 years.  Thus, it was my understanding that if one subscribed to a majority of TULIP, one was Reformed.  Apparently I need to be educated on what being Reformed means:  I was in a Reformed Homeschool FB group for a while and was genuinely surprised to encounter ladies who subscribed to head-covering (all the time, not just in church).  I wasn’t aware that was a part of Reformed Theology. Clearly, I need an expanded view of what it means to be Reformed. 

Most reformed churches (maybe all but I don’t want to make absolute statements without researching it) teach covenant theology. I believe that God has made covenants but not in the same way. Some reformed churches don’t differentiate covenants for the church from covenants for Israel.   
 

As Scout said, their eschatology is different from my understanding of Scripture. 
 

[kbutton]

21 hours ago, GracieJane said:

1. Are you Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, any other?

2. Have you always been part of the Reformed tradition? Were you raised in it?

3. Do you believe in double predestination?

4. Are you raising your children reformed?

1. I am Baptist-ish. I am a four-point Calvinist (no limited atonement), I think. I don't feel super strongly about it, but I lean this way, if that makes sense.

2. I grew up non-denominational and went to a Christian school for a number of years that had IFB and GARB leanings, though I had no idea that the GARB existed until late high school. Went to a Baptist college with GARB leanings (I didn't realize it was either Baptist or GARB until after I was planning to go--I just knew I was comfortable with their statement of faith), which is where I first heard about Calvinism and Reformed theology (some in class and some from having a Presbyterian roommate). My church taught about these things with more of that tension PeterPan references, or maybe even a lack of tension because we didn't use terms like Calvinism, Reformed, or Arminian. We learned about the concepts themselves as they came up in Scripture, and we didn't get dogmatic about the logic on top of Scripture as PeterPan describes it. As an adult, I've mostly attended SBC churches and am looking for a new church home. 

3. No

4. No. I am not reformed; I am more dispensational. I am sort of light on teaching them Calvinism; I prefer to emphasize what my church growing up emphasized, though I want my kids to know more of those terms so they aren't broadsided by people who want them to identify neatly as Calvinist or Arminian. I want my kids to be comfortable in a variety of denominations that hold a high view of Scripture and emphasize God's sovereignty as well as grace. I know people in multiple denominations who hold to those, and I have had too much frustration trying to attend one kind of church consistently over time. I know many people who switch denominations as young adults, so it seems futile to worry to much about that part. I don't want my kids to feel like attending the best option local to them would be wrong somehow because the church label is not what they are used to.

[kbutton]

4 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Most reformed churches (maybe all but I don’t want to make absolute statements without researching it) teach covenant theology. I believe that God has made covenants but not in the same way. Some reformed churches don’t differentiate covenants for the church from covenants for Israel.   
 

As Scout said, their eschatology is different from my understanding of Scripture. 
 

I was once made fun of at a homeschool conference when I asked questions about God's Great Covenant curriculum. I mentioned that I leaned Reformed Baptist, and I was told that there is no such thing. Reformed cannot equal Baptist to some folks who espouse covenant theology. Thankfully, I've not been subjected to that kind of treatment, generally, from those who adhere to covenant theology.

[Jean in Newcastle]

14 minutes ago, kbutton said:

I was once made fun of at a homeschool conference when I asked questions about God's Great Covenant curriculum. I mentioned that I leaned Reformed Baptist, and I was told that there is no such thing. Reformed cannot equal Baptist to some folks who espouse covenant theology. Thankfully, I've not been subjected to that kind of treatment, generally, from those who adhere to covenant theology.

Since there are actual churches called "Reformed Baptist" they were just misinformed.  I have not searched for their doctrinal statements though to compare them with anything else. 

[kbutton]

Just now, Jean in Newcastle said:

Since there are actual churches called "Reformed Baptist" they were just misinformed.  I have not searched for their doctrinal statements though to compare them with anything else. 

No, just mocking. I am nearly positive the person at the booth knew exactly what he was saying. He pointed out that "covenant" was in the title for a reason. Thankfully, this is not an attitude I encountered among other people who practice covenant theology. 

We did use part of that curriculum--great curriculum, but my kids couldn't do a lot of writing at that age, and I was looking for something fairly independent for them as they liked to study the Bible on their own. (I didn't find anything independent, but they read their Children's Bibles over and over--several different versions).