How do Calvinists View Non-Calvinists?

[merrykate]

My coworker and I spent many months working together under the knowledge that we were both devout Christians. We'd talk about our churches, offer to pray for one another, and share reading recommendations. We recently met for supper and discussed theology more deeply.

She is a Calvinist, and I am a Quaker, as well as a believer in universal restoration in Christ. Needless to say, we had lots of talking points!

But our conversation was open, respectful, genuine, and all-around kind. We both hold deep reverence for the Bible and believe in Christ as Lord and Savior.

This got me thinking...

How do Calvinists view non-Calvinists--Or, especially, Christians like myself who hold views deviating far from Calvinism but, nonetheless, believe such things based upon our strongest biblical study and convictions?

I am not meaning to offend, nor do I want this thread to spark heated debate or angry words. More so, I am just interested in how different Christian groups relate to one another. Never before have I been so much like someone so different than me-- if that makes sense.

Not looking for anger-- Just a genuine question hoping for genuine answers.

In Christ's Light,

Kate

 

[BryanW92]

When I was a Methodist, we would occaisionally have a class on the five points of Calvinism, where we would declare it to be crazy and non-biblical.

Then, I became a Calvinist. Here's what we think of other theologies: God is in charge, and our theologies don't make a bit of difference. So, if an Arminian believes in God and Jesus Christ, then that person has been touched by God and only those who have been chosen are touched by God. So, whatever you believe, God believes in you and that's good enough.

I have many Methodist friends and I am convinced that they are just as much a part of the Elect as I am because I can see the work that God has done in them. I would like them to become Reformed and Presbyterian so I could go to church with them again, but that's just my own selfishness.

 

[merrykate]

Very interesting, Bryan-- Thank you so much. I suppose Arminians have a pretty similar view, just reversed. That is, an individual of a different denomination chose God, and that is enough, regardless of other theologies. Being a universalist and neither Arminian or Calvinist, however, this is just a guess, as universalists tend to have a simultaneously Calvinist and Arminian approach to theology.

Thank you for the thoughtful and open answer.

 

[BryanW92]

Being a universalist and neither Arminian or Calvinist, however, this is just a guess, as universalists tend to have a simultaneously Calvinist and Arminian approach to theology.

Thank you for the thoughtful and open answer.

Do you believe that God chooses you and gives you the faith to believe in him? Or do you believe that God gives everyone the faith to believe and then some choose to believe in him and some choose to not believe in him? Or is it something different?

 

[merrykate]

I believe that God has chosen to save all, but he gives us free will to react to his love through eternity. Freewill unhampered--free from all earthly hurt, pain, and distrust of God--will bring about a free turning of the world to Christ, no matter how much of eternity it takes to break down the barriers, completing Corinthian's promise that, "So as in Adam all die, so in Christ, all will be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22).

 

[BryanW92]

I believe that God has chosen to save all, but he gives us free will to react to his love through eternity. Freewill unhampered--free from all earthly hurt, pain, and distrust of God--will bring about a free turning of the world to Christ, no matter how much of eternity it takes to break down the barriers, completing Corinthian's promise that, "So as in Adam all die, so in Christ, all will be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22).

So, the difference between your beliefs and those of Arminians is that people can be converted through their own free will after death?

 

[merrykate]

It is generally believed among Christian universalists that a decision made under a life's worth of earthly notions of God is not truly "free." Only after a soul is made aware of the full and infinite love of God--unhampered by their own past hurts and clouded minds--can they choose with full freedom. Unhindered by human anger, anxiety, or hurt, any sane person would inherently choose the eternal life and the eternal life of their Creator.

 

[BryanW92]

It is generally believed among Christian universalists that a decision made under a life's worth of earthly notions of God is not truly "free." Only after a soul is made aware of the full and infinite love of God--unhampered by their own past hurts and clouded minds--can they choose with full freedom. Unhindered by human anger, anxiety, or hurt, any sane person would inherently choose the eternal life and the eternal life of their Creator.

Well, unhampered by our human brain, there is no insanity. So, everyone says "yes" in your soteriology.

So, why do you bother with religion at all? Live a full and hedonistic human existence, not bothering with church or god whatsoever and then make the decision when you are standing before the full grandeur of God. Honestly, a Universalist who attends church for anything other than some fellowship is wasting their time.

 

[merrykate]

Doing away with the brain is not the point--The purpose is to reach the core of humanity's pain and suffering so that they may understand God's infinite love, as revealed in Christ.

Christian Universalists praise and worship God for the same reason other Christians do--To thank him for his love, mercy, and goodness. We worship Jesus as Savior from sin and suffering--for now and forever, for us and for all--and we want to spread that knowledge with others. Worshipping God with purely rewards and heaven in mind is like marrying someone solely to one day gain their life insurance.

I love answering questions about my faith, but please do not call my faith a waste of time. Is praise to the Lord ever a waste? I highly doubt so.

 

[BryanW92]

Doing away with the brain is not the point--The purpose is to reach the core of humanity's pain and suffering so that they may understand God's infinite love, as revealed in Christ.

Christian Universalists praise and worship God for the same reason other Christians do--To thank him for his love, mercy, and goodness. We worship Jesus as Savior from sin and suffering--for now and forever, for us and for all--and we want to spread that knowledge with others. Worshipping God with purely rewards and heaven in mind is like marrying someone solely to one day gain their life insurance.

I love answering questions about my faith, but please do not call my faith a waste of time. Is praise to the Lord ever a waste? I highly doubt so.

I didn't say that your faith was a waste of time. I just said that all the things we do on this earth in the name of religion would be a waste of time if we could just choose once we face God.

 

[merrykate]

Oh, of course--Universalist Christians, although they believe repentance spans eternity, feel very passionately about starting an eternity knowing God's love--and responding to it--as soon as possible.

 

[A New Dawn]

Oh, of course--Universalist Christians, although they believe repentance spans eternity, feel very passionately about starting an eternity knowing God's love--and responding to it--as soon as possible.

Just out of curiosity, because you have already started down this path (though this might not be the best thread for it ........), what do Christian universalists do with the passages in the Bible, like John 3:18, where God says that those who don't believe are already condemned? If everyone will be saved, what are those persons condemned to? Why would John say that if it weren't true?

 

[A New Dawn]

As far as the OP's question, I believe that God saves sinners. No sinner has a built-in theology, that develops after salvation. Therefore, not all believers will believe the same theological points, but that does not mean they are not believers.

 

[merrykate]

Very good question, A New Dawn. Christian Universalists interpret this verse to speak not only of a sinner's future but their present relationship toward God. God's present and future wrath are not different, for God is always the same. As Christian universalist author, Robin Parry, says, "God's wrath in the present is a foretaste of the same phenomena that some will experience in the future" (The Evangelical Universalist, 136).

God's present wrath is restorative and educational, as portrayed in Hebrews 12:5-11;Titus 2:11-12; Revelations 3:19; and 1 Corinthians 11:29-32). From this, we interpret God's future wrath as restorative, as well. The punishment is "everlasting" in the sense that it continues as long as need be for a lost soul to be made clean in Christ.

In short, nearly all Christian Universalists do believe in a hell-- It is the nature of it that is different. We believe in a hell where all punishment leads to restoration.

And thank you for your response to my original question-- Very insightful.

 

[A New Dawn]

Very good question, A New Dawn. Christian Universalists interpret this verse to speak not only of a sinner's future but their present relationship toward God. God's present and future wrath are not different, for God is always the same. As Christian universalist author, Robin Parry, says, "God's wrath in the present is a foretaste of the same phenomena that some will experience in the future" (The Evangelical Universalist, 136).

God's present wrath is restorative and educational, as portrayed in Hebrews 12:5-11;Titus 2:11-12; Revelations 3:19; and 1 Corinthians 11:29-32). From this, we interpret God's future wrath as restorative, as well. The punishment is "everlasting" in the sense that it continues as long as need be for a lost soul to be made clean in Christ.

In short, nearly all Christian Universalists do believe in a hell-- It is the nature of it that is different. We believe in a hell where all punishment leads to restoration.

So, you are interpreting "condemned" to mean something different from what it is generally interpreted, or at least looking at the time frame differently. Am I correct?

What about those passages, also in John, which speak to Jesus saving only those whom the Father has chosen to be saved, and not saving those whom the Father has not given him to be saved?

I don't mean to be debating, just trying to understand how you reconcile these verses that speak differently from universal reconciliation.

And thank you for your response to my original question-- Very insightful.

I'm glad you asked. So many just assume.

 

[merrykate]

The way I, personally, interpret the "condemnation" in this passage is not so much to mean "consigned to hell" but "still wallowing the sin of Adam." Until anyone comes to Jesus, they will remain in sin and suffering. But even Paul was once an unbeliever, and he, in this former state, was one that "stood condemned already."

But, as in Paul's case, this is not always so. "So as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22), and "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous" (Romans 5:18). Adam sinned once, and most Christians will agree that all humans now suffer due to Adam's sole action. Universalists believe that Christ holds the perfect parallel to Adam, saving all as Adam condemned all. Surely Christ's power to save is greater than Adam's power to condemn.

A common approach to your second inquiry is that there are first fruits and second fruits. Those given to Jesus by the Father now are first fruits, given to Christ for the purpose of drawing in second fruits, much as the Jews were to become a light to the Gentiles. "'I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth'" (Acts 13:47, Isaiah, 49:6).

I am not at all offended and do not find that you are "debating" at all-- Open and genuine questions are hardly debate. I was actually born Catholic, and when my began attending a Protestant church, I began to research different doctrines. Neither Arminianism for Calvinism seemed to mesh, each standing so strongly against one another in various passages. As an outsider, I simply couldn't reconcile the two. Universalism, although I initially dismissed it for years as entirely unbiblical, made Arminianism and Calvinism mesh in a way that seemed truest to the overall understanding of the Bible.

For you (and anyone more interested), I highly recommend The Evangelical Universalist and The Inescapable Love of God, both highly biblical books the delve much deeper in doctrinal debate than I could ever voice concisely on a forum.

 

[hedrick]

Just out of curiosity, because you have already started down this path (though this might not be the best thread for it ........), what do Christian universalists do with the passages in the Bible, like John 3:18, where God says that those who don't believe are already condemned? If everyone will be saved, what are those persons condemned to? Why would John say that if it weren't true?

I'm not a universalist, but I should point out that John 3:18 doesn't say that anyone is permanently lost, just that to the extent that they deny Jesus they are condemned. John makes the point that they aren't condemned by Christ's decision, but by the fact that they reject him. I would assume the thought is that because Christ is the source of salvation, anyone who rejects him is by the nature of things cut off from salvation. However John doesn't say in that passage that it is impossible for that situation to change.

Universalists don't have to deny judgement. They only have to maintain that in the end God will reconcile everyone.

 

[A New Dawn]

I'm not a universalist, but I should point out that John 3:18 doesn't say that anyone is permanently lost, just that to the extent that they deny Jesus they are condemned. John makes the point that they aren't condemned by Christ's decision, but by the fact that they reject him. I would assume the thought is that because Christ is the source of salvation, anyone who rejects him is by the nature of things cut off from salvation. However John doesn't say in that passage that it is impossible for that situation to change.

Universalists don't have to deny judgement. They only have to maintain that in the end God will reconcile everyone.

I understand that everyone would fall into that condemned category before they are saved, but I think that John is quite clear that there are those who will be saved and those who won't be saved, and verse 3:18 speaks to those who won't be saved. But this is for a different thread.

 

[merrykate]

With final exams and then Christmastime, I completely forgot about this thread! Very sorry! Just wanted to add that I think hedrick gives a solid overview of a universalist standpoint, although like Calvinism and Arminianism, things are much deeper than that, too-- but, as A New Dawn mentioned, that is for another thread.

Thank you for kind and respectful answers, everyone. I really appreciate it.

 

[twin1954]

First I must make it clear that life in Christ isn't about Calvinism. I know far too many who have only changed their theology. The truth of God is not about knowing more than someone else it is about knowing Christ. While the five points of Calvinism is the truth of God you can know and believe the five points and still be dead in sin. It isn't what you know but who you know that saves.

So now the question is can you know Christ and not know who He is and what He did and who He did it for? Are we to put our faith in a concept or a Person? The Lord said in John 17:3 that eternal life is knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent. Faith in a jesus or a god is not salvation.

Is a jesus or a god who wants, wishes and tries the true and living God? Can you be saved by faith in a false god even though you call him jesus?

What saith the Scriptures?

A good place to start looking and considering is that golden calf that the Hebrews danced around. They called it Jehovah.