Can we be what is labeled a"Tolerant calvinist?"

I have no clue what you are speaking of. What is a "tolerant Calvinist"?

 

Tolerating non calvinists?

 

Tolerant of what? Error? Heresy? Pianos and Organs?

 

Many are tolerant to a great extent. I'm still allowed here.

 

I haven't gotten a copy yet, but I'm considering The Intolerance Of Tolerance, by D.A. Carson. From Amazon reviews it seems he would be 'preaching to the choir' if I were to read it. Reminiscent of his 'The Gagging of God' probably.

I'm two thirds through James R. White's 'The Potter's Freedom.' He refutation of Norman Geisler's 'Chosen but Free.' I mention it because Geisler refers to himself as a "moderate Calvinist", while espousing an Arminian/semi Pelagian doctrine. Confessionally reformed are referred to by Geisler as "extreme Calvinists." Not much tolerance going on there, nor should there be.

Not sure if any of this is at all where the OP was going, but the above came to mind.

 

I try to be nice to non-Calvinists. I don't call them names. I don't go around eager to pick fights with them. Does that make me tolerant?

It's one thing to be tolerant in social settings. It's another to be tolerant when discussing the Bible. It's yet another to be tolerant during an ordination exam. As with any error, the situation often dictates how much tolerance is appropriate.

 

It's been my experience that when people preach tolerance, they want to silence my point of view.

NEVER agree to 'their' ground rules for civil debate. They are just trying to control the process.

 

I agree. Most folks who are tolerant just are with no grandstanding.

 

This is important. Context is key. There are things that merit little deviation like the Two Natures of Christ. On the other end are those the find the word offensive.

 

That has been my experience also. Those who speak most about inclusivism are often the first to exclude others without reason or discussion.

 

This phrase brings up memories from my past and some of the people in the ultra hyper-Calvinist church in which I grew up. I know exactly what was meant by it and I'm wondering from whom you heard it? Feel free to PM me.

If it's from any of these people from my past, I would strongly caution against their doctrines.

 

This. Especially when enforced by law. Tolerance=gag order

 

Yes, unfortunately, I'm very familiar with this kind of thinking. Proponents of this view tend to think that the gospel = election, so if we don't understand unconditional election therefore we cannot understand the gospel and we are not saved. Some of the extremes would say that upon regeneration, we have a qualitative knowledge of all the essentials of Christianity. Often times, Arminianism is defined very broadly as somebody who was not aware that they were elected before they believed. Because they define the gospel so narrowly, they do not understand that much of what is true about the gospel and the gospel promises can be communicated and proclaimed by those who do not understand the doctrine of election.

Below I've quoted John Owen as it speaks against many of the assumptions by those who use the term "tolerant Calvinism" as you've defined it:

"I no way doubt but that many men do receive more grace from God than they understand or will own, and have a greater efficacy of it in them than they will believe. Men may be really saved by that grace which doctrinally they do deny; and they may be justified by the imputation of that righteousness which, in opinion, they deny to be imputed: for the faith of it is included in that general assent which they give unto the truth of the gospel, and such an adherence unto Christ may ensue thereon, as that their mistake of the way whereby they are saved by him shall not defraud them of a real interest therein. And for my part, I must say that notwithstanding all the disputes that I see and read about justification (some whereof are full of offense and scandal), I do not believe but that the authors of them (if they be not Socinians throughout, denying the whole merit and satisfaction of Christ) do really trust unto the mediation of Christ for the pardon of their sins and acceptance with God, and not unto their own works or obedience; nor will I believe the contrary, until they expressly declare it."

 

If salvation was dependent on our accurate knowledge of all the details, I don't think anybody would be saved. I'm saved by grace, not by accurate details!

 

We are saved by faith in Christ, not by properly understanding the grace at work behind that faith.

 

Because knowledge puffs up. It is not sober thinking, but a kind of intellectual ascent above everyone else. Growing up in a church setting that promoted this kind of thought and adopting it myself for a time, I later realized that my "faith" was more of a historical faith than a saving faith. I assented to what I thought was accurate knowledge about God. Yet I don't believe I really trusted in God, but rather my intellectual abilities and knowledge.

Calvin's Institutes start out with knowledge of God and man. If we understand God as He reveals Himself, we should have a lower opinion of ourselves. Those who make salvation dependent on an amount of knowledge about election tie God's hands and require of others more than what God Himself requires for salvation. On a practical level, as we verbally fought against God's worst enemies (i.e. Arminians), we neglected personal piety and sanctification. It's no wonder that our pastor was found out to be having a long term affair with a church member!

It's ironic, but as we vehemently fought against Arminianism, we ourselves promoted a salvation rooted in our intellectual abilities. Of course, we'd say this was God-given, but we were really promoting a different version of Arminianism because at root it looked to an ability that we had that was necessary for salvation.