Questions for Calvinsts

[Choosethisday]

After having a very aggressive Calvinist small group leader try to goad me into an argument on the subject and listening to a debate between and Calvinist and a non-Calvinist I was concerned as to why this issue is so important to so many Calvinists. So I started another Topic on another forum I regularly read. I have copied the posts I entered at the at the end of this post. I left out the comments posted by others but you can get the idea. The Calvinism issue is clearly a non-essential and not worth dividing over. However, this thought seems to not be shared by all. Can some of you of the Calvinist persuasion weigh in here? I sincerely am seeking to know why this subject is so important to some Calvinists.
Thanks

Over the last few days I listened to the debate between Steve and Dr. White. I realize the debate is from over 6 years ago but still found it riveting. I also did some web searching and read comments from both sides from back right after the debate and in general the perception of who had the best points depended on from where one started from, which is to be expected. My perception from listening is that Steve was trying to get to the truth and Dr. White was trying to win the debate. I believe Dr. White really believes what he was arguing but he seemed so convinced of being right that he thought it justified to "go for the kill" instead of seeking the truth no matter where that leads. I may be being harsh but this was my perception.

I have a question for those of you who listened back 6 years ago and then followed the fallout. At the end of the last day Steve allowed Dr. White to make a final statement. The statement, hopefully close to verbatim, was "I do believe this is a vitally important issue because it will effect the form of evangelism we pursue and how we seek to defend the faith." I have noticed in talking with Calvinists that they can be passionate over this issue. However, I don't see why either of these concerns expressed by Dr. White would pertain here. I have studied missiology and evangelical movements, and just people from both sides of the argument in general, and there seems little difference in how committed or effective a movement or person is based on their view of this debate. I can understand wanting to present a united front to the secular world on essentials, but this doesn't seem an essential to me. So, my questions are, have there been statements or arguments offered since the debate from the Calvinism side explaining why this would effect how we pursue evangelism? Or why a difference here would effect how we defend the faith?

I actually like debates and think they are the best way to get to the truth. When two, or more, knowledgeable people of more or less equal knowledge debate neither is allowed to get away with some of the loose interpretations or outright wrong statements which can and does happen when an unchallenged teacher is presenting a view. And, this puts one in a competitive mindset. I think one is more likely to be clear headed in this situation.


I have reflected more on my questions and am even more concerned with the why of Dr. White's final statement. He is too experienced a debater to just have dropped that statement off the cuff and too knowledgeable of how we see the issue to be confused about the consequences, (good or bad), of our view of soteriology. So it must really be that a Calvinist sees this in as a different level of importance than we do. Has anyone read or heard a well written statement as to why changing our view of this is so important to them?
Choosethisday Posts: 41Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 8:30 pm

I also have done some more looking and found this from John Wilkin, the editor of the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society. (Link not included here). This society has been around since 1986 so it likely isn't a loose cannon within Calvinism. Hopefully it doesn't reflect the view of most Calvinists but it would seem to reflect the view of some of their leadership. It would seem there are some common thoughts among Calvinists, at least American Calvinists anyway, that this debate is about essentials!

 

[Awaken4Christ]

Though I lean more toward reformed theology, I wouldn't be called reformed/Calvinist by those who are full 5 pointers. I might, however, be able to give you some insight into the situation as I have been studying this for a while now.

You will get usually one main answer from Calvinists to this question. They will claim that it is "Biblical". We all know that was the answer coming but there is more to it than that. There are many things that reinforce it in the Calvinist's mind. Not only is it "Provable" to them, but it is also "Logical" and "Practical."

I want to focus on the practicality of it, not in the sense of their own personal lives, but in contrast to false church doctrine. Imagine that you see all these false doctrines that arise. Many are man-centered doctrines that incorporate materialism or the ego. Things like "God is going to give me a brand new car." and more subtle things like taking verses out of context. If you look at Church history you see that the Calvinism side has a good track-record of staving off false doctrine. So whether the 5 points of Calvinism are true or not, It has been a safe-zone against Church Heresy.

But just because something is effective against false doctrines, doesn't necessarily mean that the "cure" is also the complete "truth." Now Imagine this safe-zone called Calvinism, Its proven itself as anti-false doctrine in many ways. Now you might be able to see why the Calvinist might think things like it is "Calvinism versus the world".. Or why "Calvinism" is just another word for "Christianity".

So imagine you are a person who reads the scriptures and sees the sovereignty of God, like in amazing verses like this.

Rom. 8:29-30
"For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

How are you going to find a church in the heaps of churches out there that tries really hard to give God his due respect, that wants to submit to his will, and that wants to take the bible seriously? A conservative church trying to follow the scriptures, where the beatitudes may be impossible to perfectly follow but no matter how desperate the situation, will still tarry for the cause. A church that realizes God's sovereign power over the world and their lives?

I believe there are churches like this that do not have a Calvinistic statement of faith, but they are harder to find.

I wish that those who see God as Sovereign and Savior could all unite under one banner. But the specifics of Calvinism and the association with Calvinism being the only way in the minds of Calvinists is what is at least partly to blame.

Believe it or not there are people out there who are not Arminians or Calvinists, but they hold reverence for all scripture and respect the sovereignty of God. A lot of Calvinists right now want to blot out theological inconsistencies but they are using too broad of brush.

Oh, something you may want to look up is "cage stage" regarding Calvinism. This might give you some insight too.

Something I should mention is that non-calvinist views are often seen as an attack on God's Character.
A lot of times they claim it reduces him, his power level, his sovereignty.

 

[Choosethisday]

Awaken, thank you so much for replying. I appreciate your well thought out reply. And you are correct that historic Calvinists, such as John Calvin himself, and modern Calvinist such as RC Sproul and John Macarthur might well suggest you have a different understanding that themselves. As you likely know they and most other who teach Calvinism would insist that all the points of Calvinism must be true or none of them are because Calvinism is a system where all of the points either stand together of fall together.

I was a Calvinist for about half of the 44 years I have been a Christ follower and at one time taught Calvinism. But like you I would not have considered myself a full 5 pointer. It was as I studied deeper that I realized the problematic scriptural issues with Calvinism and what I came to see as an attack on Gods' character that I found myself having to reexamine my beliefs.

I will research the "cage stage" thing and reflect more and then get back again. My main concern over the whole issue is it seems this is one of the things the Body is dividing over and this is something that should not be.

Blessing for now.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

If you look at Church history you see that the Calvinism side has a good track-record of staving off false doctrine. So whether the 5 points of Calvinism are true or not, It has been a safe-zone against Church Heresy.

I take issue with this statement as being of the very man-centered nature you speak against in the early paragraphs. It is not man's theology -- which is essentially what Calvinism is, given it attempts to explain the unexplainable -- but rather the power of the Holy Spirit that protects men's hearts and minds from false teachings such as the prosperity gospel, the "signs and wonders" movement, Brownsville, Toronto, etc.

To my point that Calvinism attempts to explain the unexplainable, that is found in their efforts to make the highly complex nature of God's sovereignty and explain it in overly simplified -- and therefore, erroneous -- ways. The truth of the matter is, God is sovereign, but man is still responsible. No less than Spurgeon acknowledged this seeming dichotomy and determined (in his sermon #207) that he would not attempt to explain it, but simply believe both as God's truth.

If man is responsible, then he has some role in the choice of following Christ or rejecting Him. Calvinists will not allow that teaching, and in doing so attempt to redefine the original Greek text as saying something it does not, and that leads to their gravest error.

 

[South Bound]

After having a very aggressive Calvinist small group leader try to goad me into an argument on the subject and listening to a debate between and Calvinist and a non-Calvinist I was concerned as to why this issue is so important to so many Calvinists.

Because whether man initiates salvation or God initiates salvation is crucial to the Gospel.

 

[Awaken4Christ]

Because whether man initiates salvation or God initiates salvation is crucial to the Gospel.

John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."

Not trying to nitpick too much, but some Arminians would agree with that statement. John 6:44 is pretty absolute on who initiates salvation. The calvinist gets more specific than that.

As to the topic at hand,

Before this goes on an insulting tirade any longer let me say this. The 5 Points are not essential to salvation, the specifics of Calvinism are not essential. For Calvinism is not the process that drives salvation, but an explanation about salvation. Calvinism is not God, but an explanation about God and his sovereignty. The Bible language is much more preferable to anything John Calvin and company have to offer. It doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong, but that scripture always remains the most reliable source.



Luke 18:17


"Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”

Clearly, given this scripture, Salvation does not require a specific and deep exegetical explanation on the specifics of how soteriology and the nature of God's sovereignty work

Twin, so arminians worship a different God? That would mean basically that all Arminians are not saved wouldn't it? That is too sweeping of statement, and I wouldn't let this discussion get under your skin too much.

So what if someone doesn't come to the consesus that unconditional election is the most accurate of terms. I really think the issue is not whether someone teaches or comes to the specific understanding that clavinists do, but rather whether not a person or group is teaching something false. I do not believe Calvinism can be proven false.

Both Calvinism and Arminianism remind me of something that might be written in the Talmud. They are both higher understandings that can both be scrutinized and analyzed. Can you shut out a brother or sister for lack of knowledge because they don't have the highest understanding and specifics on the nature of God's sovereignty,.... really? All the best theology in the world isn't going to help you at the judgement seat of Christ if you deny fellowship with a true follower of Christ. I hate to say this but it sounds like Pharisee-ism to me.

Yeah it maybe harder to weed out false prophets and heretical doctrine, without your calvinists only club, but think about it for a second. THOSE WHO ARE SAVED DON'T ALWAYS COME TO THE FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE SPECIFICS OF CALVINISM, AND THOSE WHO DO GOD'S WORD DON'T ALWAYS COME TO THAT FULL SPECIFIC UNDERSTANDING EITHER.

 

[South Bound]

John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."

Well, what that really means is...

 

[Choosethisday]

Twin
I tried typing out a lengthy answer to your statements but my phone died. I think I can suggest things that will make you rethink some of you ideas but it will have wait a couple of days. Please don't become too entrenched where you are now.

 

[JM]

Twin
I tried typing out a lengthy answer to your statements but my phone died. I think I can suggest things that will make you rethink some of you ideas but it will have wait a couple of days. Please don't become too entrenched where you are now.

Hi Choosethisday,

The one thing you will notice about Calvinists...we tend to become more Calvinistic with time, not less. Very few versed Calvinists become non-Calvinists because Calvinism proves itself in everyday life. It is true scripturally and experientially. We know Calvinism is true because it is found in scripture and we know Calvinism is true because God really is sovereign over all things. The good, the bad and the ugly God is in control.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Choosethisday]

I will say that Calvinists sometimes seem to get more close minded to considering other views of this issue. I look forward to writing more but can't now. In the meantime, from many of the comments expressed here I can tell that most of you don't really know what we believe. Here seedbed.com/feed/arminianism-get...get-Olson/[/url] is a link to a free e-book that gives a good summary of what we believe. It is not exhaustive in explaining our views but a good starting point. Please look it over and if you still think we have a different God then we really do need to converse more.

 

[Choosethisday]

Sorry, this forum wouldn't let me post the whole URL. Go to seedbed .com and you should be able to find it.
Blessings

 

[twin1954]

Don't assume that I don't know what you believe. I have been around a long time and have engaged in many Calvinist/Arminian debates. I have read the works of Wesley, Finney, Barclay and even Arminus. I don't make the statement lightly. I do recognize that most Calvinists would disagree with me.

 

[Choosethisday]

Twin, aren't you the one who said Arminians believe in a different God. If so you really do not know what we believe.

 

[JM]

Choose,

The Calvinist understands free will religion to be man centered. Man's will in salvation trumps God's will. Man's prerogatives in worship for example are more important than scriptural directives, man's whims and pleasures are the seat of his religion. This religion is not found in scripture. You may not like how I summed up free will religion but that is an accurate summary. This free will religion is not founded upon scripture alone but contains a scriptural veneer to remain "Christian" in terminology. It lacks the substance and that substance is Christ Jesus, sovereign Lord and ruler over all. Christ is not a half savior anymore than He is a half sovereign. Christ is sovereign over all including the will of man.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread is being closed for staff review.

Folks, this is not Soteriology but it is still NOT okay to imply that others are not Christian or worship a different God or to insult the other view.

 

[twob4me]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT ON!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Okay this thread has gone through a clean up and it's quite possible a further cleaning will take place. If you notice a post of yours missing it was removed in the clean up.

Please stop with the Flaming. You can not state or imply that others are not Christian or that they worship a different God. Here is the Flame and Harassment rules:

Flaming and Harassment
● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue. Refrain from insulting, inflammatory, or goading remarks. When you disagree, remember to address the content of the post and not the poster personally.
● If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.
● Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian is not allowed.
● Be considerate and do not make another member's experience on this site miserable. This includes making false accusations or persistently attacking them in the open forums.
● Respect another member's request to cease personal contact.

You can find the above listed within the Christian Forums Rules / Terms of Service

Please read them carefully and be mindful of those rules when posting. The thread is being reopened but if you continue to post like you have been this thread can and will be closed permanently and those involved may find themselves with staff actions. Let's not let it come to that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT OFF!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Choosethisday]

I was just about to post this when the thread was taken down. I really do not want to offend anyone so please tell if I do and if it seems it could be reasonably seen as offensive please let me know and I will remove it.

I will try to work through these posts and respond more or less in order.
Awaken

Once again thank you for your thoughtful reply. I did look up “cage stage”. This would seem analogous to the smoker who quits the habit and then becomes a fanatic about getting other smokers to quit. As an article on the Ligonier states it such a person works to turn every conversation into one about limited atonement. Also, there is another point you brought up in you second post. This concerns the “5 points”. In actuality there are more than these points but this may also suggest another reason a Calvinist might tend to be aggressive over this issue. This is that as Calvinistic leaders have suggested, a Calvinist must believe in all the points or none of them. So this would give them more incentive to be aggressive in their defense of all the points.
Twin
Proverbs 18:17 The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him.
Just to remind you, I was a Calvinist for decades. I studied and even taught Calvinism. I know the verses used by Calvinists and the ensuing arguments for their view. On the surface these arguments seem to support Calvinism. As stated above, I believed these arguments until I really dug into Scripture. Eventually the weight of this study convinced me of my current position. This was a painful process. However, unlike you I don’t consider this issue an essential and don’t want this thread to turn into an argument between Calvinism and non Calvinism so I want to avoid arguments over the specifics of the Scripture and instead focus on the whys of the animosity of this issue.
As to your other statements;
Clearly Calvinism won the battle for dominance in Protestantism. And as history shows, the victors write the history. I realize there are many versions of what happened in Geneva during Calvin’s time and these versions conflict. However, there is no question Calvin was very powerful during this time and he usually got his way. To suggest he was not complicit in the murder of Servetus is rather like the Mormons trying to suggest Bingham Young had no control over the Mountain Meadows massacre. It simply isn’t plausible Calvin didn’t at least acquiesce to the murder. As to the version of him trying to stop the burning or get Servetus to repent or change the burning at the stake to just hanging him this is only one of several versions. There are also credible versions which show he urged the use of green wood to extend the suffering of Servetus. We likely will not know the facts this side of eternity but the least we can be certain of is Calvin was complicit in a very brutal Geneva government.
Next would be your given reason “for us not getting along”. We also fully believe God is absolutely sovereign over everything. Where we would differ is that we also believe He is sovereign over His sovereignty. This means that while He could control absolutely everything He has instead chosen to limit this control in some areas. I have heard the various teachers of Calvinism repeatedly teach that we don’t believe in the full sovereignty of God. This is simply not true. In fact, when listening to some of these teachers I often have to wonder if they are really talking about my beliefs or something else. They either really miss understand what we believe or are deliberately miss stating these beliefs.
ThisBrotherOfHis
I agree with everything you have said. However, although I disagree with the Calvinist position we should be careful to affirm them as full Brethren in Christ. I believe that a person’s fruits say much about his faith. My wife and I are very involved in foreign missions and work closely with both Calvinist and non-Calvinist brothers and sisters in this work. We have found that both camps have their very dedicated and some not so dedicated people with their believe on this issue seeming to not be a factor. So once again, as long as a person is a true Christ follower I will be careful in how I refer to him.
South Bound
I am not quite sure which position you are coming from but just to clarify, as far as I know both camps believe it is God who initiates salvation. The only difference I know between them is that we would say that after this point God allows a person to say yes or no to this invitation. Another possible disagreement is that we do not consider accepting His offer to be a “work” as some Calvinists insist it is. We do believe as Calvinists do that salvation is totally a work of God.
JM
Once again, I just can’t see where you come up with what you see. The Bible and life in general is permeated with scriptures and examples of persons, and celestial beings, having to say yes or no to God’s urgings and desires. I will just urge you to start reading the Bible without the Calvinistic predisposition and see if things look different after that.
And Twin again
Once again, from what you have said you really don’t know what we believe. I suspect you have listened for years as the teachers of Calvinism have build up a straw man argument about us to make it appear our understandings of Scripture are rife with error. Please do some serious research and see if you still think we are heretics, which we would be if we worshiped a different God. And please pray for God to help you see this as He does. At the end of it you may still be a Calvinist but hopefully you will not reject us as brethren.

 

[Vanellus]

I'd be interested to hear what committed Calvinists and Arminians think of the comment about Spurgeon (in his sermon 207) - Googling "spurgeon sermon 207" finds it.

e.g.

The system of truth is not one straight line, but two. No man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. I am taught in one book to believe that what I sow I shall reap: I am taught in another place, that "it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." I see in one place, God presiding over all in providence; and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions to his own will, in a great measure. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act, that there was no presidence of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to Atheism; and if, on the other hand, I declare that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free enough to be responsible, I am driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other. These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.

By the way Spurgeon could have said "parallel lines meet at a point". If you don't believe that just think next time you see a sunburst through clouds. How come all these rays from the sun (which is such a long way away) look like they are all at different angles. Trace them back and you'll see they meet at where the sun would appear in the sky if the clouds weren't there.

As minister of Metropolitan Tabernacle in London Spurgeon would be regarded as a Reformed Baptist - does that necessarily mean he was a Calvinist?

Am I right to assume "five points" is TULIP?

 

[Metal Minister]

Because whether man initiates salvation or God initiates salvation is crucial to the Gospel.

This is essentially the point isn't it. Synergism vs Monergism. God's sovereignty (Monergism/Calvinism)vs Man's Sovereignty (Synergism/Arminianism). It boils down to is God in control of whom is saved, or does man exercise control over God? That's the main conflict. Calvinists are willing to give God all the sovereignty and glory while Arminians want to hedge their bets and claim absolute free will.

 

[Choosethisday]

First, once again I don't want to argue about the non-essential theological differences between Calvinists and non-Calvinists but rather my concern is to find out why this should divide us as the Body of Christ. I will briefly respond for now but there are abundant forums where these differences can be argued.

Yes, TULIP is a mnemonic used to remember the points. There are some variations but TULIP is the most common one. Some Calvinists have suggested that the "L", limited atonement, be changed to "particular redemption" because they think this is more accurate in what they want to convey. Also, there is nothing magic about 5 points, though out history and even in different cultures the way the stanchions of Calvinism are portrayed sometimes end up with a different number of points.

As to Spurgeon, yes he was a reformed theologian, although more of a preacher than a theologian. He gave very powerful sermons aimed at the level of the average church goer. As to his view of the "two straight lines", today this is known by Calvinists as compatibilism, which is the idea that God simultaneously controls absolutely everything that happens, including when a person sins, and yet the person, even though they had no choice but to sin, is still responsible for the sin. I have studied campatibilism, and while I think I am following the logic, also think it breaks down and doesn't do what Calvinists want it to do. To me the theory is more about obfuscating the issue to the point where a person just shrugs and goes along with the party line. The idea that God fates a person to sin was unheard of within Christianity before Augustine. There is no question this is the case and even Augustine and later Calvin both stated that prior to the introduction of the idea by Augustine all of the church fathers believed in God granted free will. Remember, Augustine was heavily involved in Manichaeism and Neo Platonism. He was a brilliant theologian but almost certainly carried over some of his early ideas from this past philosophy.
METAL MINISTER
We are covering the same ground we have already covered with your post. The statements about non-Calvinists shows a misunderstanding of what we believe. Please, for now, stop listening to what some of the Calvinists teachers say we believe and go to some of the many sources for what we really believe. Then if you still think we are off the mark on an essential get back to me and we can talk more.