The Calvinism Chart (again)

Calvinism Chart

1. 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.

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

copyright Rev Jonathan James Goundry

12 thoughts on “The Calvinism Chart (again)

  1. On this scale, how would one best be classified who believes the following:

    1. God ordained and brings to fruition every thought, word, action, inaction, and event in existence including sinful ones.

    2. Each person is nonetheless responsible even though God has made them thus (be they vessels of wrath or vessels of mercy). Man is commanded to repent and believe, despite their inability, but no man can naturally obey such commands.

    3. There is no Gospel belief without belief in the Gospel and any gospel that does not incorporate ‘the essence’ of the five points of Calvinism (though they may not know it as such by name or delineation) is no gospel at all.

    4. Those who are loved of God from eternity, chosen in Christ from eternity, predestinated to be conformed to His image from eternity, called from eternity, and glorified from eternity (in Christ) are likewise justified from eternity because our eternal life (which is both hid in Christ and is Christ) was in Christ from eternity and that life was always justified in the eternal mind and purpose of God.

    5. There is nothing in the Bible that suggests a Well– Meant Offer, only a declaration of Gospel truth to be believed by the grace of God. John 3:16 (whosever believeth – pas ho pisteuon) is no more of a free/well-meant offer than Matthew 5:28 (whosoever looketh – pas ho blepon).

    6. That God declares that His love is for Christ, in Christ, and for those who are in Christ and that there cannot be any form of love (or grace) for those outside of Christ — even denying that the fattening of the lamb for slaughter (James 5:5 and Psalm 73) equates to love of any kind or form.

    • Hi Curt. I believe that you would fit nicely in High or Ultra High Calvinism…with me. 😉 The currently trend in ‘Calvinism’ is really a downgrade if you ask me, a confusion of Arminianism and Calvinism known among our Baptist fathers as ‘Fullerism.’ This doesn’t make us popular and it can be difficult to discuss our beliefs with other ‘evangelicals’ who profess Calvinism but the Gospel is either all of grace or it is nothing. It is either God’s work in us or it is our work for ourselves, there is no middle road, there is no comprising with freewill works religion. Thanks for sharing your beliefs with me and others who will read them, it is important to remind the remnant, they are not alone.

      • Strongly agreed (and thanks for the reply)! Fullerism, Baxterianism, Amyraldism, etc. all represent means to compromise the Gospel and make things more palatable for our sinful flesh. I understand that some people are ignorant in these things (in the sense that they have never thought these matters through) but I believe that there are many (especially preachers) who want this “moderate” approach, no matter what they hear and read, because it is more “popular” and lessens the likelihood of persuction. $$$ no doubt plays a role as well… watering down the truth can often lead to a bigger congregation and paycheck.

      • My position of so-called Calvinism, is based also upon Augustine and Augustinianism, as to per Calvin! And not at all some aspect of modern Evangelicalism! And I most certainly follow more the Irish Articles 1615, I would hope that you fellows would read them? Note, this was mainly the work of the Archbishop James Ussher.

        *See too btw, Ussher’s nice volume: A Body Of Divinity, Being the Sum and Substance of the Christian Religion, (Solid Ground Christian Books, 2007) Btw, Dr. Crawford Gribben has wriiten a New Intro here.

  2. Its Infralapsarian for me (God’s plan of salvation for some people followed and was a consequence of the fall of man from grace). Here are the majority of the Reformed Creeds!

    Btw jm, have you ever read the Irish Articles 1615? Here, with the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles I stand to degree, but always Holy Scripture first!

    I have noted, btw, that you seem to stand aloof from our modern so-called Reformed Theolog’s…John Frame, Mike Horton, etc.

    • I’ve read Frame but not Horton. I enjoy modern theology but will note that many Reformed folks follow the Marrow Men and use the ‘sufficient for all, efficient for the elect’ formula and I do believe it is a compromise with Arminianism.

      • I see, thanks to answer. Yes, I am (as was Calvin I believe), one of those that believes the Atonement of CHRIST (His person & work) was sufficient for all, but only efficient or efficacious for the Elect or Chosen. And I don’t see a wit of Arminianism here! It is the quality of Christ Himself! And we can note too common grace here also. We are to preach Law & Gospel! Again of course the “kerygma” (message) of Christ only affects, for salvation, the Elect, but it does “call” everyone! “for many are called, but few are chosen.” (Matt. 20:16)

      • Fr. Robert,

        I want to say that perfect theology doesn’t save, that’s Gnosticism, Jesus Christ saves. If we disagree on the divine details I do not believe you are any less of a Christian. You position is noted but I believe Christ’s death is efficacious in every respect. I really dislike the term common grace, grace is not common at all, common providence is a much better term. I do believe in the free proclamation of the Gospel but deny the free ‘offer’ of the Gospel.

        ‘Many’ are called this is true, but not all, see my post from the work of Owen. Christ also died for ‘many’ and not all.


      • Aye we don’t want to fall into a mere “scholasticism”! Though I like good Protestant Scholasticism, note Richard Muller. See his fine book: Christ And The Decree, Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology, from Calvin to Perkins. 🙂

      • Aye, or reactionary modernism. I have read Muller’s 4 volume Post-Reformation Dogmatics. I borrowed them so I had to read all 4 in two weeks, my head was spinning but I found Muller, generally, very well balanced even when we disagreed. Fr. Robert, I am a Baptist first and foremost, one that is Calvinistic. It must be recognized that our Particular Baptist church has developed shoulder to shoulder with the Reformed church but we develop separately, not within the Reformed tradition. The idea that we are ‘Reformed’ is a modern idea. For hundreds of years Baptists were Baptists or Particular Baptists, not Reformed. Pointing to Calvin and Perkins is useful, helpful and needed but keep in mind we have Benjamin Keach, Hercules Collins, Abraham Booth and John Bunyan. The 1689 London Baptist Confession sided with supralapsarianism we Baptists have a history of High Calvinism, Higher than Reformed Calvinism.

        Quote, “In contrast, the 1689 Confession seems to advocate a far more definite stance on the lapsarian position. Firstly, in the 1689 Confession, the distinction between ‘predestination’ and ‘foreordination’ is collapsed. The revised section in 3.3 was changed to read, “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory some men and Angels are predestinated, or fore-ordained to Eternal Life.”35 Furthermore, in chapter 3.6, the addition of a comma36 before the phrase “being fallen in Adam” is far more suggestive of a reading which alludes to the temporal ordo salutis rather than the order of decrees sub specie aeternitatis. Following this reading, “the words, ‘being fallen in Adam’, do not imply that the elect when elected were contemplated as fallen in Adam. The words simply state an historical fact which explains the necessity of redemption by Christ and the other phases of salvation.” These two modifications of the Westminster Confession undoubtedly demonstrate the Baptist’s desire to subscribe to a supralapsarian understanding of the ordo decretorum. However, this definite stance on the lapsarian position does not necessarily call into question the Baptists’ use of the Westminster document. If the Westminster document is careful to avoid language which excludes one or other lapsarian position, then it clearly treats a specific lapsarian position as immaterial to the more immediate task of creating a Confession of Faith. That the Baptist Confession chooses to promote a supralapsarian ordo decretorum does not oppose the Westminster document, but rather elucidates the Westminster Confession so as to give it a more definite interpretation. “

      • @Jason: Yes indeed the so-called Reformed Baptist (1689) position is the lone Calvinist position, from the more classic Infralapsarian creeds. And certainly the loss of predestination and foreordination in the ordo salutis is Reformed Baptist, and of course some would see this as Hyper-Calvinist, theologically.

        We know Pink was at one time a Strict and Particular Baptist. But again, just the shades of historical Calvinism, here, as your post shows. Lots of room for “Calvinism”. Though as you acknowledge this was not Calvin or early Reformed Calvinism.

        Thanks to engage and share! 🙂

  3. dont believe in calvinism. man has free will, angels didnt.we r saved by grace. but we can backslide. God tested Abraham and thru faith Abraham was righteous. we are not robots. God wants to save the lost, he sat with them and ate.God loves everyone. God is love.God said choose Good or evil

Leave a Reply to Monty cline Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s