# Where are you on the Calvinism Chart?



## Civbert

Look at the following Calvinism Chart and see which best fits your particular Calvinist position. You don't have to agree explicitly with each definition, just place yourself were you most agree. 

This is an OPEN POLL. Your selection is not secret. 



*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.


*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


 *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


 *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


 *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


 *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


 *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

http://www.exegiaaudio.org/exegiacalvinsimweb.mht

P.S. Almost forgot: copyright Rev Jonathan James Goundry. Thanks VanVos.


----------



## AV1611

*You label me!!*

I believe that the gospel is to be preached to all mankind; however,
I deny duty faith and duty repentance.
I deny common grace.
I deny that the gospel is an "offer" and is rather a declaration.
I hold to eternal justification.
I hold to supralapsarianism.

*=* in my opinion I am a _high_ Calvinist


----------



## AV1611

*Helps*

*FYI:*

http://www.epc.org.au/start/literature/stebb6.html
http://www.epc.org.au/start/literature/mod-cal.html
http://www.epc.org.au/start/literature/universa.html


----------



## Civbert

I picked ultra-high just so the curve will be a little more uniform.  High-calvinism is probably the best fit for me.


----------



## Magma2

I'm a little confused as to the difference between ultra and high octane Calvinism?

Also, per High it states: "Some believe in particular grace. . . ."

Should that be common grace? I thought all Calvinists even the anemic kind believe in particular grace?


----------



## VanVos

Civbert said:


> I picked ultra-high just so the curve will be a little more uniform.  High-calvinism is probably the best fit for me.



Thanks for putting the poll together. Looks like High-calvinism is the general consensus of the puritanboard. Have you heard this book High Calvinists in Action ?
I think I'm going to have purchase a copy. 

VanVos


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

I'll gladly sit in the "High Calvinism" pew with Turretin and Owen. 
Although I lean toward Infra rather than Supra.


----------



## Magma2

VanVos said:


> Thanks for putting the poll together. Looks like High-calvinism is general consensus of the puritanboard.



Aren't you jumping to conclusions? There have only been 7 respondents so far. This isn't CBS news!


----------



## historyb

I picked High Calvinism, but I can say that in discussion on other forums I go into ultra high Calvinism in some of the way I put things


----------



## jenney

Well, after answering the last poll wrongly because I didn't understand a term ("justified true belief" where I thought true meant genuine/sincere and it meant correct) I'm going to ask first before I define myself!

I've heard different people mean different things by "common grace". I believe in it in the sense that all men deserve hell, yet are allowed this present life for a time. I also believe that for the non-elect those good things are unto judgment so maybe that is denying common grace. So what do you mean by it so that I can know if I believe it or deny it? 

And I don't know what i think about the lapsarianism business, so I won't count that in my answer. I think I'm going to end up "high" but the jury's still out. I have to admit that "high" sounds more respectable than "low" so I feel somewhat abashed about choosing it, but that's the way it goes.


----------



## VanVos

Magma2 said:


> I'm a little confused as to the difference between ultra and high octane Calvinism?
> 
> Also, per High it states: "Some believe in particular grace. . . ."
> 
> Should that be common grace? I thought all Calvinists even the anemic kind believe in particular grace?



Depends who you read:

In my reading I found that John Owen was a high calvinist but believed in common grace, I think also Turretin. Some say no high calvinist believes in common grace, some say all do, so I think the most accurate position is some do. 

VanVos


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

Jenny, just click on "High."  

Also, I think VanVos (Jonathan) admits there may be some adjustments needed in his definitions/distinctions. And there is some overlap to be considered. But looking at the spectrum of categories, one can generally pick a place for himself.


----------



## Civbert

Magma2 said:


> Aren't you jumping to conclusions? There have only been 7 respondents so far. This isn't CBS news!


 You can go home folks - the winner has been declared! 

I'm feeling lonely as the uno ultra. I wonder if we will see the Buffalo effect. Anyone feel influenced by the fact that (so far) the vast majority is High-Calvinism. Does it make want to vote with the winners. 

The inner-irrationalist in me feels like a loser. But then the same inner-irrationalist says being at the top of the list makes me number one! 

<play Rocky theme music>


----------



## AV1611

VanVos said:


> Have you heard this book High Calvinists in Action ?



Yes; I have read it and it is very good.


----------



## VanVos

Magma2 said:


> Aren't you jumping to conclusions? There have only been 7 respondents so far. This isn't CBS news!



I perceive that most puritanboard folks will be high to ultra. I think the people here like to be consistent in their theology


----------



## Me Died Blue

VanVos said:


> Depends who you read:
> 
> In my reading I found that John Owen was a high calvinist but believed in common grace, I think also Turretin. Some say no high calvinist believes in common grace, some say all do, so I think the most accurate position is some do.
> 
> VanVos



I would say this is a good illustration of why broad distinctions like these (low, moderate, high, ultra-high Calvinism) are often arbitrary and seldom helpful. Much better to compare the Reformed confessions (and theologians) on each individual issue, observing where they are silent, and where they emphasize things differently.

That said, I did vote, but basically just in hopes of helping to make it clear that infralapsarians do make up a significant portion of all Calvinists currently (just as they always have historically).


----------



## Romans922

What is the 'well-meant offer'


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

As I see it, the Well-Meant-Offer reflects the view of the Murray-Stonehouse Report in 1948 response to Clark-VanTil controversy.


----------



## larryjf

I picked high calvinism.

supralapsarian, limited atonement, the atonement is sufficient for the elect only.


----------



## AV1611

Romans922 said:


> What is the 'well-meant offer'



http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_35.html

http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/wellmeantofferandreprobation.htm


----------



## ReformedWretch

Curious as to who the hyper vote belongs to...


----------



## Civbert

Me Died Blue said:


> I would say this is a good illustration of why broad distinctions like these (low, moderate, high, ultra-high Calvinism) are often arbitrary and seldom helpful. Much better to compare the Reformed confessions (and theologians) on each individual issue, observing where they are silent, and where they emphasize things differently.


I think it's actually quite useful in getting a ball-park view. The fact that there are different denominations is a case in point. If we didn't find the categories helpful, we'd all be non-denominational. 



Me Died Blue said:


> That said, I did vote, but basically just in hopes of helping to make it clear that infralapsarians do make up a significant portion of all Calvinists currently (just as they always have historically).



Didn't the infra make up the majority in that poll? I think it was pretty evenly split. I'll have to do a search.


P.S. It was close, almost 40% infra. http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=16603&highlight=supralapsarian


----------



## Theogenes

HIGH Calvinism.
I'm glad no one has said "I'm a high Calvinist" because certain hippy types might get the wrong idea...


----------



## Civbert

houseparent said:


> Curious as to who the hyper vote belongs to...


It's an open poll. You can click on the numbers to see who voted for what. 

Should I have added that information to the first post? I think we tend to think open polling is not good, and secret ballets are better. But I was interested in seeing if anyones vote were a surprise.

P.S. I just added that poll is "open" in the first post.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

I'm about 50% moderate, 30% high and 20% ultra if that's possible.


----------



## JonathanHunt

I am majority moderate, but as with most polls the options are limited. The part of me that isn't moderate is high, but not ultra-high.

JH


----------



## Civbert

Blueridge reformer said:


> I'm about 50% moderate, 30% high and 20% ultra if that's possible.


  That's impossible!!  It's inconceivable!! 

I thought about making it multiple choice.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Civbert said:


> That's impossible!!  It's inconceivable!!
> 
> I thought about making it multiple choice.



I'm so confused.


----------



## Romans922

I am a mix between High and Moderate Calvinism --> I picked Moderate.


----------



## Chris

I think free-will baptists generally deny Eternal security, don't they? 

Adrian Rogers wouldn't, by that standard, qualify as a free-will baptist. 

I don't think falwell would either...???

<--high C


----------



## VanVos

Yeah I agree the title free will baptist is misleading. I was going put Southern Baptist, but that also a mixed camp. Maybe general Baptist would be a better term.

VanVos


----------



## brymaes

Romans922 said:


> I am a mix between High and Moderate Calvinism --> I picked Moderate.


Me too.


----------



## Magma2

I went with High, but was tempted to go Ultra so Anthony won't feel lonely.  

I agree that perhaps the definitions could have been clearer. For example for High: 

1. "God in no sense desires to save the reprobate" 

Yet, 

2. "some deny the Well-Meant Offer." 

Wouldn't the affirmation of 1 be the necessary denial of 2 since the WMO is the idea that God desires to save the reprobate? 

Although I tend to lean toward the Ultra position, since for example I think there is a sense in which the elect are in some sense eternally justified (see Kuyper and Richard Bacon) and also if love is an action then I would say the love question is answered above per #1 which would mean Highs are really Ultras and just don't know it.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Romans922 said:


> I am a mix between High and Moderate Calvinism --> I picked Moderate.


----------



## MW

Gomarus said:


> I'll gladly sit in the "High Calvinism" pew with Turretin and Owen.
> Although I lean toward Infra rather than Supra.



Yes, I couldn't work out why Turretin's name was attached to a position which outrightly calls itself supralapsarian. And Owen taught the absolute necessity of the atonement, so that effectively banishes him to the fringes of high-Calvinism. I would summarise high calvinism as the belief that God does all things according to the counsel of His will.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Romans922 said:


> I am a mix between High and Moderate Calvinism --> I picked Moderate.


----------



## JM

AV1611/RJS, just admit it!


----------



## BobVigneault

I wanna be high, so high
I wanna be free to know
The things I do are right
I wanna be free
Just me, babe!
That's why I'm easy
I'm easy like Sunday morning


I'm a High Calvinist but I'm also easy like Sunday morning.


----------



## BobVigneault

I'm hoping that the one hyper is just a High Calvinist jacked up on Red Bull.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Me Died Blue said:


> I would say this is a good illustration of why broad distinctions like these (low, moderate, high, ultra-high Calvinism) are often arbitrary and seldom helpful. Much better to compare the Reformed confessions (and theologians) on each individual issue, observing where they are silent, and where they emphasize things differently.



I completely agree. Anymore, I prefer to call myself a Christian that subscribes to a Reformed Confession. That said, I voted anyway because I hate seeing polls forever that have no results.

Incidentally, it will be interesting if any vote for some of the low hanging fruit options from a board membership standpoint.


----------



## Civbert

BobVigneault said:


> I'm hoping that the one hyper is just a High Calvinist jacked up on Red Bull.


 
Maybe a high calvinist is really an ultra high calvinist on Prozac.  


Just trying to bring down the level of discourse enough to tempt a low calvinist to vote.


----------



## 5solasmom

Gomarus said:


> As I see it, the Well-Meant-Offer reflects the view of the Murray-Stonehouse Report in 1948 response to Clark-VanTil controversy.




Oh that clears it up!

 

I need an interpreter.....


----------



## 5solasmom

BobVigneault said:


> I'm hoping that the one hyper is just a High Calvinist jacked up on Red Bull.




   

Sorry about the multiple posts...I needed these laughs today! Thank you!


----------



## MrMerlin777

High Calvinist for the most part kind of hard to label all of what I am.

I'm a Hyper-Calvinist after drinking 10 cups of Java.


----------



## Augusta

High Calvinist in the qualitative sense.  I drink decaf.


----------



## Hungus

Moderate Calvinism: Which I have always been taught as "low calvinism" so I picked low (mistakenly by this polls definitions). to call amyraldianism low calvinism is an insult to John Calvin and Moses Amyraut. I agree with Sproul a 4 point calvinist is an arminian.


----------



## Theoretical

Gomarus said:


> I'll gladly sit in the "High Calvinism" pew with Turretin and Owen.
> Although I lean toward Infra rather than Supra.


----------



## BertMulder

BobVigneault said:


> I'm hoping that the one hyper is just a High Calvinist jacked up on Red Bull.



To put your fears to rest, Bob, lack of sleep may have something to do with it. April 30 is almost here. 

Anyhow, I still had on my mind how it seems you are either hyper or arminian when I voted here. I believe I am properly classified as high calvinist, but there is no way to change my vote.

Maybe a mod can move me over?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I think for profound questions such as these we need to keep this always in the fore of our thinking:

W.W.R.W.D. - What Would Rick Warren Do?


----------



## LadyFlynt

High Calvinism.

there's 2 on hyper and 2 on ultra now. This board needs to cut back on the caffiene.


----------



## InChains620

*A Re-vote*

I voted moderate Calvinism but when I looked farther into it I think I would classify myself as a High Calvinist. I tend to lean more the supra view of things. So if I could vote again I would vote High Calvinist. 

 "If it were Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably he has been disappointed!"


----------



## calgal

Romans922 said:


> I am a mix between High and Moderate Calvinism --> I picked Moderate.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

I made a boobo, can i get to re-vote? I accidentally chose Hyper.


----------



## satz

Can you hold to high or ultrahigh calvinism and still affirm common grace and an infra position ?


----------



## VanVos

There's been some good feed back here on the chart. I appreciate some of the comments. I'm going to make some revisions. And then post it on exegia.org . I think it is going to be impossible to get these definition iron clad and water tight, but I'll try to be as accurate as possible, that's why I intentionally blurred the colors to show that the different positions can overlap at times i.e. Turretin being infra and not supra. 

VanVos


----------



## Civbert

VanVos said:


> There's been some good feed back here on the chart. I appreciate some of the comments. I'm going to make some revisions. And then post it on exegia.org . I think it is going to be impossible to get these definition iron clad and water tight, but I'll try to be as accurate as possible, that's why I intentionally blurred the colors to show that the different positions can overlap at times i.e. Turretin being infra and not supra.
> 
> VanVos



BTW - What software are you using to produce the chart?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

I am between moderate and high Calvinism. I choose moderate Calvinism because, according to the descriptions, high Calvinism denies the Free Offer of the Gospel.

-CH


----------



## VanVos

Civbert said:


> BTW - What software are you using to produce the chart?



Publisher 2003. nothing fancy.


----------



## terry72

I voted moderate.


----------



## Magma2

trevorjohnson said:


> A better phrasing would be to say that God loves all men with a general love and God is kind to all and loves them by giving them undeserved pleasures even though they will end up in hell.
> 
> God loves all the world (considered as a whole) of both man and an nature in that he saves mankind and nature through the salvation of the Elect and the restoration of the world in the Age to Come. Like A Gardener loving his Garden as a whole and expressing that love by picking out the weeds.



I don't know what kind of gardener you are, but I know I hate weeds as do all of my neighbors, who are arguably better gardeners than I will ever be.

Also, while the sun and the rain fall on the elect and reprobate alike so do towers like the one in Siloam (Luke 13:4). The Lord's curse is on the house of the wicked, but he blesses the dwelling of the righteous (Prov 3:33). While I'm sure one can point to the material and temporal blessings God bestowed on even the reprobate (and you just have to watch MTV to get a sense of this today), yet God said he hated Esau even from his mother's the womb. I tend to think these temporal "blessings" are not so much blessings as they are a means of judgment:

Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.
James 5:1-5 

The whole general love idea reminds me of a song by Tom Waits called Chocolate Jesus:

Dont go to church on sunday
Dont get on my knees to pray
Dont memorize the books of the bible
I got my own special way
Bit I know Jesus loves me
Maybe just a little bit more 

Well, maybe not. Anyway, your other points concerning God's supposed unfulfilled desire are spot on. 




> About infra versus supra lapersianism, I agree with Robert L Dabney that this whole thing is a "useless controversy".



You should read Robert Reymond.


----------



## Herald

BobVigneault said:


> I wanna be high, so high
> I wanna be free to know
> The things I do are right
> I wanna be free
> Just me, babe!
> That's why I'm easy
> I'm easy like Sunday morning
> 
> 
> I'm a High Calvinist but I'm also easy like Sunday morning.



Bob 'I want to sing Lionel Ritchie on American Idol' Vigneault.


----------



## BobVigneault

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Bob 'I want to sing Lionel Ritchie on American Idol' Vigneault.


----------



## MrMerlin777

LadyFlynt said:


> ....there's 2 on hyper and 2 on ultra now. This board needs to cut back on the caffiene.




 

          

(jittering and chattering teeth) I I I I'm t t turning into a a a Hy Hyper- Ca Ca Calvinist......


----------



## VanVos

Okay I've made a couple of revisions to the chart found here, which should hopefully be more accurate explanation of the different positions

VanVos


----------



## Civbert

VanVos said:


> Okay I've made a couple of revisions to the chart found here, which should hopefully be more accurate explanation of the different positions
> 
> VanVos



I updated the initial post but let me know if I missed anything. I couldn't change the poll to show American Baptist instead of Free-Will Baptist but the first post shows the change.


----------



## Civbert

I can't belive Rev. McMahon voted Low Calvinism!!


----------



## JOwen

BTW, Moderate Calvinists affirm the well meant offer. Murray did, as well as Calvin. Some delineate however between ardent desire and preceptive will. There is a difference.


----------



## Civbert

Civbert said:


> I can't believe Rev. McMahon voted Low Calvinism!!



OK. He didn't vote LC. I was trying to entice Matthew into casting his vote. 

Didn't work. 

So far. 

Besides, I know he's a closet Lutheran.


----------



## tellville

I chose High Calvinism, though I have sympathy for some of the moderate positions. Like a previous person said, while I do hold to the well meant offer, I view it more as a declaration then a genuine offer. I think the atonement would be sufficient for all, but God chooses to only apply it to the elect. 

It feels kind of weird choosing an option that would make me more of a Calvinist then Calvin


----------



## BertMulder

tellville said:


> I chose High Calvinism, though I have sympathy for some of the moderate positions. Like a previous person said, while I do hold to the well meant offer, I view it more as a declaration then a genuine offer. I think the atonement would be sufficient for all, but God chooses to only apply it to the elect.
> 
> It feels kind of weird choosing an option that would make me more of a Calvinist then Calvin




That is the same what I believe on that issue, if by that you mean that God works that "offer" himself in the hearts of His people ...

Now if we could sway you to the paedo position, brother ....


----------



## LadyFlynt

Hey, Andrew hasn't voted either. (cough, cough)


----------



## Magma2

JOwen said:


> BTW, Moderate Calvinists affirm the well meant offer. Murray did, as well as Calvin.



Calvin did not affirm the WMO. http://www.prca.org/articles/ctjblack.html


----------



## BertMulder

Magma2 said:


> Calvin did not affirm the WMO. http://www.prca.org/articles/ctjblack.html




Hear Hear!


----------



## JM

I voted:


----------



## tellville

BertMulder said:


> That is the same what I believe on that issue, if by that you mean that God works that "offer" himself in the hearts of His people ...



Yep. 



BertMulder said:


> Now if we could sway you to the paedo position, brother



While I find the Padeo arguments compelling I find the Padeo critiques of the Credo position far from compelling if that makes any sense? Thus, while I am currently wrestling with the Padeo arguments, I'm not wrestling with them in the sense that they have poked holes in my Credo view but rather that they provide another compelling presentation of how to view baptism, covenant, etc.


----------



## pilgrim3970

Me? more or less moderate


----------



## Brian Bosse

I voted, but then realized my vote was ordained by God. Does this corrupt the poll?


----------



## MrMerlin777

Brian Bosse said:


> I voted, but then realized my vote was ordained by God. Does this corrupt the poll?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

LadyFlynt said:


> Hey, Andrew hasn't voted either. (cough, cough)



Would you care for some throat lozenges, Colleen?


----------



## KMK

How would Pink and C. Hodge have voted?


----------



## bfrank

I voted "high" with the idea that there is some common grace afforded to God's creation. Supra vs. Infra becomes a philosophical argument in my mind.


----------



## PresReformed

I voted High Calvinist, but I actually agree with everything listed for Ultra-High Calvinism except the phrase about eternal justification. I do believe that there is a sense in which the elect are eternally united to Christ though.


----------



## JWJ

*A Slight Change due to Terminology*

After reflecting further on the defintions provided and on the "common understanding" of key terms (e.g. justified, love, well-meant offer, common grace ), not to mention the public displaying of how each person responded to the poll, I am compelled to publically change my vote to High Calvinism. 

In a "sense" there is not much difference between both Ultra and High--i.e., depending on how one defines and limits the "sense" of the terms above.



Jim


----------



## Dagmire

So where is "Christian" on this chart? That's the one I am.


----------



## yeutter

Civbert said:


> Look at the following
> [*] *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
> 
> 
> .


If I read Luther correctly this definition misrepresents the position of Martin Luther. It correctly reflects the position of Melanchthon and the Book of Concord.

For the record I listed myself as ultra high Calvinist because:
1.] I am troubled by the doctrine of Common Grace as set forth by VanTil and reject the doctrine of Common Grace as set forth by the Christian Reformed Church.
2.] I do not agree with the idea of a free well meant offer of the Gospel as set forth by Murray & Stonehouse.


----------



## B.J.

I chose Ultra-High. I think this is an accurate breakdown of my thinking. Although I do hold to a view of _Common Grace_, though not like most views. I had a conversation one time with a Calvinist buddy and he asked me if I believed in _Common Grace_. The kind where God desires the salvation of the elect in some _sense_, which is a _sense_ that I have never heard explained to my satifaction. He holds to a 2 will scenario much like Piper. I responded in saying that the only thing holding back God's wrath on this world(non-elect) is the elect. Once the last elect is brought into the kingdom, earthly speaking, it is *"game over." *Much like the fllood of Noah. If that is how _Common Grace_ is defined, I am alright with that. Another way I think of _Common Grace _is that God lets the unrightous live, breath, and have a grand ol' time for the sake of the elect coming to faith. I am not sure who that view may line up with historically speaking.


----------



## Civbert

yeutter said:


> If I read Luther correctly this definition misrepresents the position of Martin Luther. It correctly reflects the position of Melanchthon and the Book of Concord.



You may be right, but the description does represent the views of Lutherans today - at least the ones who consider themselves reformed like the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.


----------



## Civbert

BTW, I grew up in the LCMS so I am fond of the denomination. I'm glad to see we have a least a one from that denomination. The Missouri Synod is the the Evangelical Lutheran Church is what the PCA is to the PCUSA.


----------



## JM

> In it, I cite liberally from Luther's The Bondage of the Will, showing that popular Calvinism is in fact far weaker than Luther's view regarding God's sovereignty over all things, including sin and evil. In fact, several of the harsh rebukes that Luther unleashes against Erasmus can be directly applied to popular Calvinism without any modification. I also argue against passive reprobation in this section.



link

Interesting read.


----------



## AV1611

Civbert said:


> The Missouri Synod is the the Evangelical Lutheran Church is what the PCA is to the PCUSA.



Is that good or bad? Enlighten your English brother


----------



## Civbert

AV1611 said:


> Is that good or bad? Enlighten your English brother


 That's good for the MSLC. 

They have rejected liberalism that has infected the mainstream Lutheran denominations, just as the PCA is a rejection of the liberalism of the PCUSA.

Ever notice that people from a PCUSA church will simply call themselves presbyterian, but someone from a PCA church will always qualify presbyterian with "PCA".


----------



## KMK

I like the phrase coined by Morecraft: TTTR: Totally, Thoroughly, and Tenaciously Reformed


----------



## Theoretical

Civbert said:


> That's good for the MSLC.
> 
> They have rejected liberalism that has infected the mainstream Lutheran denominations, just as the PCA is a rejection of the liberalism of the PCUSA.
> 
> Ever notice that people from a PCUSA church will simply call themselves presbyterian, but someone from a PCA church will always qualify presbyterian with "PCA".


Oh yeah, I've noticed and done that too. I have to do it when talking with evangelicals so I am not associated with the PCUSA.


----------



## Israelite

Great topic, i fit nicely into high calvinist, although the word "calvinist" bothers me, it allows false religionists to attack what one preaches as soon as this word is mentioned. But it's a nickname that wont go away so i'll get over it.

one point if i may, you forget to mention "hypo cavinism"
for a definition please see this article on the trinity foundation website.

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=161


----------



## JM

This was a good thread.


----------



## jacobiloved

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> I am between moderate and high Calvinism. I choose moderate Calvinism because, according to the descriptions, high Calvinism denies the Free Offer of the Gospel.
> 
> -CH






I believe in the Gospel offer , i also believe in a modified Supralapsarian position.

Also I am moving towards eternal justification with a couple of reservations ....


----------



## John Gill

Interesting Poll.
I'ts helped me to understand the different kinds of calvinism.


----------



## Machaira

John Gill said:


> Interesting Poll.
> I'ts helped me to understand the different kinds of calvinism.



Then I'm sure you'll enjoy the lectures found here.


----------



## Reformed Baptist

Theogenes said:


> HIGH Calvinism.
> I'm glad no one has said "I'm a high Calvinist" because certain hippy types might get the wrong idea...



In the wrong area someone confessing they are a high calvinist may get stoned! 

At any rate, I am not sure how I fit into any of the definitions. I am certainly a five-pointer, covenant theology, believe the Gospel should be preached to every creature, the offer is sincere, Christ died for the elect only, et. 

Does a Spurgeon Calvinist count?


----------

