I can't help but think some hairs are being split.
lain: :chuckle:
Do you know how they would differentiate themselves from true Calvinists?
program
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
I can't help but think some hairs are being split.
lain: :chuckle:
Do you know how they would differentiate themselves from true Calvinists?
He will quickly correct someone when they call him that, he said he debates them often. I know just enough about Calvinism to know it confuses me, lol, I couldn't give you any specific differences really. I disagree with Hilston but find his view "Determinism" much easier to comprehend.
Lon
Well-known member
I can't remember off the bat but being that He is MAD, I'd say Limited Atonement and probably just a bit on Unconditional Election (like a good many Protestants).
Take my name off this list, Chrys. I'm not MAD. I agree with some of what they believe. But, I don't believe that the church began in mid-Acts.
I can't help but think some hairs are being split.
:chuckle:
Do you know how they would differentiate themselves from true Calvinists?
Tell Hilston that, I'm sure he'd fill you in quickly.
Actually I'd like to see that conversation. Would be interesting to see, I'll readily admit I don't understand Calvinism. The more I see it explained, the worse I understand it.Added... no, I couldnt give you a good breakdown of the differences.
Add me to this one because it's the closest to what I believe.
Lon
Well-known member
You have to hold all five tenents of TULIP to be a Calvinist or you have to call them something else because the whole foundation of why one is a Calvinist comes from Covenant Theology which is much different than any form of Dispensationalism. If you are any kind of dispensationalist, you aren't going to be a Calvinist, they are opposing ideas.I can't help but think some hairs are being split.
:chuckle:
Hilston is MAD which is similar to hyper Dispensationalism and as such, is a long way from Covenant Theology and Calvinism. It is important, because the way we read and study scripture and understand it is differently emphasized. Dispensationalists pay close attention, in all of their bible reading, to the differences between the way God works with different people, through different dispensations or ages of working His Grace. While they see all things pointing to Christ, they emphasize these differences.
Covenant Theologians, when they read scripture, are looking for what is the same and see a unified unfolding plan rather than focusing on any differences. As such we see and understand all of scripture having a greater cohesion than our dispensational counter-parts. Interestingly, because hyperdispensationalists focus on their pinacle as gentile believers, and we Covenant theologians see that same pinacle of the huge cohesive mountain of Old and New Testaments, We actually get along on quite a few points but we get there differently. MAD focuses nearly exclusively on Pauline literature. We Covenant, rather, see that literature as the culmination of the whole ball so, of course we differ too on a few important points too.
Sozo is a little like Hilston in that he has an aversion to labels.
And make me look like a fool while doing it.Tell Hilston that, I'm sure he'd fill you in quickly.
Yes. Now, knowing this, I'd like to see Hilston debate AMR or Lon so I could really see the differences.
Good post above, Lon.
lol he is very good at that when he wants to
Would be interesting for sure.
And make me look like a fool while doing it.
lol he is very good at that when he wants to
Would be interesting for sure.
Actually i think he believes those, he debated me on them, i don't believe those. I believe Christ died for everyone but that everyone wont receive Him and that we have free will. His position was that Christ died only for the elect and we do not have free will, and it was in a thread about calvanism, so since he took that position, i assumed he was calvanist.
I do not know of anyone outside of calvanism that believes we do not have free will or that Christ died only for the elect.
Lon
Well-known member
As Delmar says, he prefers to avoid labels. He has, however, made it clear he isn't a Calvinist, being MAD he couldn't be.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
You should be.
I guess my point is that if a person were to ask me, I would always identify as a Christian. Occasionally, I'll say that I am a member of the Way.
Really? This Way?
http://www.escrivaworks.org/book/the_way.htm
Lon
Well-known member
Perhaps Calvinistic but I think it misdiagnosed. You generally get to 5 point Calvinism by being Covenant Theology. AMR would say "no such thing."
It'd be like saying there are MAD Lutherans. They don't really go together. Lutherans aren't dispensationalists and neither are Calvinists.