Talk:Calvinism

	This Christianity related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Expansion on article

I think that this is a good article, but I believe it should be expanded further. Calvinism has more content than simply the five points of Calvinism. Make haste slowly (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Within the article I also ditched some of the Sproul citations, since the Sproul citations are comparable with the confessional citations. The confessional citations are more authoritative. Make haste slowly (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Expansion on salvation

I may be totally wrong on this, but is "Calvinists are saved" part of their beliefs? That is never stated explicitly, and I have thought for quite a while that you can never be sure you are saved. Largely, I have seen Calvinism as a group for people who suck at math, speaking probabilistically. Tonight, I also had the interpretation of Calvinism as a cargo cult. I have also seen the predestination as a rational one in terms of behavior on Earth (there is nothing you can do, so don't worry about it), and puzzled why such a group would try to convert others. Am I correct in thinking these interpretations are wrong and that Calvinists know they are saved?

I do believe I could write a good fun page on this.

Added a few seconds after initial commit. Imarcuson (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No. There's a disagreement of opinion on that, but many Calvinists do not believe that they can know for certain that they are saved or part of the elect. Also, the article says, Perseverance of the saints. Those few who are converted to Christ will remain saved. They cannot lose their salvation because they were predestined by God to be saved. Thus, there is no notion of true apostasy within Calvinism. This doctrine raises a number of problems, not the least of which is that it's impossible to identify someone who's been saved from someone who has not. From a Calvinist perspective, that's not a problem but a feature. Jesus said "Judge not, lest ye be judged." It's inappropriate to speculate as to whether any of your neighbors might be in the elect or not. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

--- Pest says - You've irrationally confused two things. Knowing whether you are elect or not does not mean you aren't saved. It only means you can't produce an infinite and thus un-rationally doubt-able proof that you're saved or not. Calvinists believe they are saved but can not produce an undoubtale proof they are saved, even though some bicker over this point. Yes, in calvinist theology, the elect are saved, and indeed because of predestination cannot be anything but saved - this is taught in romans ch 8 verse 29 and following. Which usually brings up the screamingly irrational accusation that you could be elect and sin like a freak - which is irrational because calvinism also teaches that man's nature must be changed from "non-posse non-peccare" to "posse-non-pecarre." (Google the latin, that's why I used it)AND calvinism teaches that the elect WILL persist in belief and what is called sanctification - that essentially calvinists will not be free of sin in this life, but will at some level be at WAR with sin in this life. People not accustomed to thinking in system tend to mess calvinism very bad. Ps, there's a genuine historical definition of "hyper calvinism" - and no, calvinist soteriology (how one is saved) does NOT logically conclude in "hyper" calvinism. I sort of expected the wiki claiming the name "rational" to give a ... rational ... reason why they'd claim such a thing. ^{— Unsigned, by: 98.18.231.237 / talk / contribs 02:31, 4 September 2014‎} ---

Notes on The fringe of the fringe

There are also some believers in Calvinism who take these five points to their logical conclusion. ---Logical conclusion if you ignore Jesus' words of the great commission. God commands believers to evangelize.

They are often called "Hyper-Calvinists". Hyper-Calvinists will typically refrain from any evangelistic attempts at converting "sinners", believing that only God will do the converting. More "moderate" Calvinists do believe in personal evangelism, believing that they can be God's instrument in reaching those he has chosen to be saved.

What this means in practical terms is all us filthy pagans, heathens, atheists, Jews, and other unrepentant sinners were predestined by God to be this way, and can never be saved. ---wrong about "can never be saved". God grants repentance to those whom he wills. So, that doesn't mean God won't eventually melt your heart of stone.

Fred Phelps was known to subscribe to a particularly whacked variant of the Hyper-Calvinist belief system. He not only believed that filthy reprobates are predestined for hell, but also that God actively hates them and brings about their untimely deaths. Another Calvinist that has risen to more recent prominence among this loon squad is Harold Camping, the mastermind behind the (horribly failed) May 21, 2011 Doomsday date phenomenon. ---So sad that Camping the nut bag is being associated with reformation. Fail.

His "predictions" instigated fringe Calvinists with little knowledge to go on a mad conversion spree, trying desperately to find God's "elect" before the Judgement Day that never came.

--- Gotta get dat postmil or amil or go with dat reformed mind. Then nut bag Camping or others with bootleg eschatology get discarded.

The Christian churches in his surroundings generally reject him as a heretic for violation of the no-future-predictions-please rule, that relies on some sayings attributed to Jesus himself.

---Yezsir. If you wanna predict the future in the name of God you have to be 100% right otherwise youre a false prophet. Deut 18. Also cant lead after false gods- Deut 13. K tanks. I hope God grants you all repentance. Turn from absurdity and embrace Christ.‎ ^{— Unsigned, by: 140.198.78.56 / talk / contribs 18:53, 7 November 2014}

What is "dainty writing" as featured on Puritanboard

Familiar with that site and it is quite a spectacle. "Dainty writing" seemed a funny jab but I don't quite get it. How is the writing "dainty"? Do you mean it's pompous?^{— Unsigned, by: 144.118.241.182 / talk / contribs}

Can we add supralapsarian and infralapsarian sections?

Can we add these? Those are two distinct, important schools of thought in Calvinism. Anim (Carfa) 14:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)