Could Someone Explain Calvinism?

[Sine Nomine]

Minor Correction:
Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin) - Sin has so affected man that man can in no way please God. He does not have the ability or desire to do so apart from God's grace.
The logical consequence is, of course, that we are born again by God's will and not our own.

I don't wish to start a debate, but I would like to point out that in statements like this man usually means mankind and rarely is "a man" used. The logical conclusion is that mankind is saved through an action on God's part--that would be the work of Christ. The Bible clearly teaches that salvation is available to all through Christ and that Christ's work is to save, not to condem. John 3:16-17. To rephrase, we are born again because the almighty, triune God willed that Christ would become an atonement for sin--and this was not done by our will or because of any goodness that we possess, but solely that God loves us and desires to save us.

 

[Sine Nomine]

Where is that assurance? You can't tell me that there is a single Christian of a Calvinistic thought that has NOT had a moment of doubt. As an Eastern Christian, I pray, I hope that my life has been centered enough on Him to make it into heaven. Even if I have to take the lowest place in heaven, polishing the streets of gold, I will be content.

His life and His Love are centered enough on you that He wants you to be with Him. The position that you occupy in the Kingdom, whether great or small, will not be one of simple contentment, but of great joy.

I suspect that Calvin could explain his theology, but I doubt that Calvin is truly understood anymore and I'm not sure he could defend Calvinism.

 

[bsd058]

24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

God knows the end from the beginning, and therefore knows who will be saved and who will not, but He does not have us come into this world pre-programmed for one or the other outcomes (Calvanistic predestination). He gives everyone a free choice, and it is the exercise of that free choice which determines the fate of every one of us ...

Jesus taught "whosoever" - that means "anyone" ...

Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

Mt 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

and other verses of Jesus own words. But now possibly the best known verse of Scripture, in its context ...

John 3
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: ...

There will be the majority who never chose to accept God's free gift of salvation, but that is their God-given choice. he has not created two different arms of humanity - one destined to be saved, and one destined to be lost.

Albeit a short, oversimplified reply, I pray it will help someone.

I don't wish to start a debate, but I would like to point out that in statements like this man usually means mankind and rarely is "a man" used. The logical conclusion is that mankind is saved through an action on God's part--that would be the work of Christ. The Bible clearly teaches that salvation is available to all through Christ and that Christ's work is to save, not to condem. John 3:16-17. To rephrase, we are born again because the almighty, triune God willed that Christ would become an atonement for sin--and this was not done by our will or because of any goodness that we possess, but solely that God loves us and desires to save us.

I think y'all missed my post here.

 

[Sine Nomine]

I think y'all missed my post here.

I didn't miss your post. Also not trying to sow division. Augustine and Calvin are both gone and unable to defend their views. I believe that you are correct that Calvin is essentially Augustinian. The answer that would be perhaps most helpful to Monk Brendan is whether today's Calvinism/Calvinists are teaching precisely what Augustine did. I don't have the answer. Can we know? Is there helpful info available?

I generally find that I have problems when systematic theology begins to suggest that it understands precisely what God is doing and how he's doing it. This is above our paygrade, even though studying and understanding theology systematically is a good thing.

 

[bsd058]

I didn't miss your post. Also not trying to sow division. Augustine and Calvin are both gone and unable to defend their views. I believe that you are correct that Calvin is essentially Augustinian. The answer that would be perhaps most helpful to Monk Brendan is whether today's Calvinism/Calvinists are teaching precisely what Augustine did. I don't have the answer. Can we know? Is there helpful info available?

I generally find that I have problems when systematic theology begins to suggest that it understands precisely what God is doing and how he's doing it. This is above our paygrade, even though studying and understanding theology systematically is a good thing.

I see what you're saying.

 

[Rick Otto]

While I have dipped my toe in the Assemblies of God, and have sat through a few Baptist services, I don't get the whole idea of God creating UN-elected people. I mean, if He loves everyone, wouldn't He want all of us to live with Him in heaven? I know that there are several passages in the Bible about election. But it still seems to me that God still loves everyone, and wants all of us to be in heaven with us.

An attempt...
I agree with Calvin's soteriology but part ways with him on sacramentology and ecclesiology, especially in the area of church discipline.
That said, God also seems to allow what you think He doesn't want, if He indeed "loves everyone".
If He loves the people in hell, why does He allow them to go there?
Let's not over-value the creation and under value the Creator.
Mercy trumps justice in the phenomena of the saving grace that imparts faith and eternal life.
So we have His reason for creating in-elect right here:
Romans 9:22-23
What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
[23] And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

 

[AllIsrael]

It may be in this last day that people will loose their congregational identities and simply will not care what congregation a fellow Christian belongs to!

Well, it may be in this last day that people will lose their congregational identities, but will also be united in believing the same things concerning the one true Gospel. Consider that in the last days there will be 2 witnesses (Rev. 11) whom God appoints to represent him and speak every truth of the Gospel to the world. Anyone listening to them will know that every word that comes out of their mouth is the true Gospel. For some Christians, it will help them to sort out which doctrines are false or irrelevant, and for some non-believers it will torment them. These 2 witnesses apparently will assure that God's exact message to the world will be accurate and concise, not a mish-mash of various doctrines that people think are Christian.

 

[Jesus: From Gen to Rev]

John 3:16 is often misunderstood. First of all, there is no "whosoever" in the Greek. The word "whosoever" should actually be rendered "all the believing ones."

Dear bsd058, please allow me to correct what I believe was an innocent mistake on your behalf here ...

The "whosoever" came from the Greek that could be translated everyone, all, every, etc., and is qualified by the word "believes". Put together, the two words could read as you stated.

This text does not suggest predestination, it, along with the rest of the Bible, teaches the free choice we all have to choose to "believe" in Christ or not.

 

[Jesus: From Gen to Rev]

Well, it may be in this last day that people will lose their congregational identities, but will also be united in believing the same things concerning the one true Gospel. Consider that in the last days there will be 2 witnesses (Rev. 11) whom God appoints to represent him and speak every truth of the Gospel to the world. Anyone listening to them will know that every word that comes out of their mouth is the true Gospel. For some Christians, it will help them to sort out which doctrines are false or irrelevant, and for some non-believers it will torment them. These 2 witnesses apparently will assure that God's exact message to the world will be accurate and concise, not a mish-mash of various doctrines that people think are Christian.

I pray people come to the realisation, from comparing Scripture with Scripture, and history that fits with the Bible, that the Two Witnesses are indeed the OT and NT - the entire Bible.

Start with Zech 4 and tell me what you find.

 

[bsd058]

Dear bsd058, please allow me to correct what I believe was an innocent mistake on your behalf here ...

The "whosoever" came from the Greek that could be translated everyone, all, every, etc., and is qualified by the word "believes". Put together, the two words could read as you stated.

This text does not suggest predestination, it, along with the rest of the Bible, teaches the free choice we all have to choose to "believe" in Christ or not.

I didn't say Predestination had anything to do with John 3:15-16. It's particular redemption (limited atonement) that it has to do with. The purpose of Christ being sent. It was so that believers would be saved. It certainly says nothing about the will of a person.

To be clearer I say all the believing, because that is the literal meaning. but I see what you're saying. Yes "Whosoever" is fine to use. Or "whoever" even. As long as it's understood that Jesus was sent so that 100% of the believers would be saved.

 

[rockytopva]

Well, it may be in this last day that people will lose their congregational identities, but will also be united in believing the same things concerning the one true Gospel. Consider that in the last days there will be 2 witnesses (Rev. 11) whom God appoints to represent him and speak every truth of the Gospel to the world. Anyone listening to them will know that every word that comes out of their mouth is the true Gospel. For some Christians, it will help them to sort out which doctrines are false or irrelevant, and for some non-believers it will torment them. These 2 witnesses apparently will assure that God's exact message to the world will be accurate and concise, not a mish-mash of various doctrines that people think are Christian.

Welcome to CF my good man! And may I add... There is a great deal of mish-mash of various doctrines that people think are Christian.

 

[Episaw]

This is not Calvinism. This is what is known as Molinism.

Calvinism would not base God's choice on his foreknowledge of events (in the sense of knowing beforehand), but rather his foreknowledge of people (loving those he would bring to life in Christ).

God's choosing in Calvinism is not passive (does not depend upon what He sees other would do), it is active (is the cause of the redeemed being born again).

As the church did a four week series on Calvinism and I was chosen to be a Calvinist, I assure you what I said was brief resume of Calvinism.

 

[Jesus: From Gen to Rev]

I didn't say Predestination had anything to do with John 3:15-16. It's particular redemption (limited atonement) that it has to do with. The purpose of Christ being sent. It was so that believers would be saved. It certainly says nothing about the will of a person.

To be clearer I say all the believing, because that is the literal meaning. but I see what you're saying. Yes "Whosoever" is fine to use. Or "whoever" even. As long as it's understood that Jesus was sent so that 100% of the believers would be saved.

Thanks bsd058, and as long as we understand that "whosoever" (or which ever suitable word we are comfortable with) means that any and all of humanity have the free choice to be a "whosoever", then we would be in agreement on this issue.

Nobody is born predestined to be lost, nor to be saved, even though there will be people lost and others saved. It comes down to each of us choosing for ourselves.

Thank you for your discussion on this.

 

[St_Worm2]

Calvinism was the product of John Calvin, who believed that God chooses who will be saved according to his foreknowledge so he does not attempt to save those who will not be saved because of their rejection of his son Jesus again according to his foreknowledge.

This is possible because God knows everything from alpha to omega.

The other fact is you can't save someone who does not want to be saved and the scripture is clear that there are those who are going to reject Christ regardless.

So in this respect, Calvinism is not so strange. Take away the foreknowledge of God and you have a different story entirely.

This is not Calvinism. This is what is known as Molinism.

Calvinism would not base God's choice on his foreknowledge of events (in the sense of knowing beforehand), but rather his foreknowledge of people (loving those he would bring to life in Christ).

God's choosing in Calvinism is not passive (does not depend upon what He sees other would do), it is active (is the cause of the redeemed being born again).

Hi Episaw, I agree with bsd058, what you've been taught is specifically NOT Calvinism. It could be Molinism or Arminianism, but it is definitely not Calvinism.

Perhaps you know of our little acrostic TULIP? The "U" in TULIP stands for "Unconditional Election". It means that God's choice of us is NOT "conditioned" on our future actions regarding faith in His Son (or anything else He sees in us for that matter). Arminians are the ones who believe that God looks down through a tunnel of time to see how we respond to the Gospel, and that God chooses/elects us based on our choosing of Him first. This, again, is NOT what Calvinism teaches (it is, in fact, the opposite of what Calvinism teaches).

Calvinism also teaches (along with the Bible .. i.e. Romans 3:10-12) is that no one seeks God/that ALL of us reject Him. In fact, God's interference with the free will of His elect by regenerating our hearts (i.e. Ezekiel 36:26; John 3:3) is the only reason we finally choose to believe.

Yours in Christ,
David

 

[Episaw]

Hi Episaw, I agree with bsd058, what you've been taught is specifically NOT Calvinism. It could be Molinism or Arminianism, but it is definitely not Calvinism.

Perhaps you know of our little acrostic TULIP? The "U" in TULIP stands for "Unconditional Election". It means that God's choice of us is NOT "conditioned" on our future actions regarding faith in His Son (or anything else He sees in us for that matter). Arminians are the ones who believe that God looks down through a tunnel of time to see how we respond to the Gospel, and that God chooses/elects us based on our choosing of Him first. This, again, is NOT what Calvinism teaches (it is, in fact, the opposite of what Calvinism teaches).

Calvinism also teaches (along with the Bible .. i.e. Romans 3:10-12) is that no one seeks God/that ALL of us reject Him. In fact, God's interference with the free will of His elect by regenerating our hearts (i.e. Ezekiel 36:26; John 3:3) is the only reason we finally choose to believe.

Yours in Christ,
David

As I said, I was asked to take the side of Calvinism and I read up on TULIP to know what I was talking about.

 

[St_Worm2]

As I said, I was asked to take the side of Calvinism and I read up on TULIP to know what I was talking about.

Hi again Episaw, I've been a Christian for 30 years, and a Calvinist for about the last 20 of those years. With respect, if you truly understand what Calvinism teaches you are not communicating it very well, because both of the points you made in the post that I replied to teach the polar opposite of what Calvin and Calvinism teach about 1) election and 2) how/why the elect come to faith.

If you don't believe me, head over to Semper Reformanda here at CF, then go to the Ask a Calvinist board and let a number of other Calvinists explain it to you if you'd like. You might want to start by going to the link that I left you above to "TULIP" and read what it has to say there about the 5 points of Calvinism (also known as the "Doctrines of Grace")

Yours and His,
David

 

[Episaw]

Hi again Episaw, I've been a Christian for 30 years, and a Calvinist for about the last 20 of those years. With respect, if you truly understand what Calvinism teaches you are not communicating it very well, because both of the points you made in the post that I replied to teach the polar opposite of what Calvin and Calvinism teach about 1) election and 2) how/why the elect come to faith.

If you don't believe me, head over to Semper Reformanda here at CF, then go to the Ask a Calvinist board and let a number of other Calvinists explain it to you if you'd like. You might want to start by going to the link that I left you above to "TULIP" and read what it has to say there about the 5 points of Calvinism (also known as the "Doctrines of Grace")

Yours and His,
David

I have been a Christian for 64 years and I have never been a Calvinist or an arminianist. My response wasn't intended to be a comprehensive response, only a basic outline.

 

[St_Worm2]

I have been a Christian for 64 years and I have never been a Calvinist or an arminianist. My response wasn't intended to be a comprehensive response, only a basic outline.

Right, but the "basic outline" you've given us outlines what "Arminianism" teaches, not what Calvinism teaches. It, in fact, "outlines" what would be considered the dead opposite of what Calvinism teaches (as I've already said).

If you'd like, I can recommend some excellent resources (links/books/broadcasts) if you'd like to get a basic understanding of what Calvinism 'actually' teaches

Yours in Christ,
David

 

[bsd058]

As the church did a four week series on Calvinism and I was chosen to be a Calvinist, I assure you what I said was brief resume of Calvinism.

With all due respect, you didn't do enough research (due diligence).

Because what you describe, even the outline, is flat out the opposite of Calvinism. It is Molinism. It presents the idea of middle knowledge and passive choosing. Unconditional election is just that. God chooses based on his desires, and not on our actions or what he would foresee would happen.

I have been a Christian for 64 years and I have never been a Calvinist or an arminianist. My response wasn't intended to be a comprehensive response, only a basic outline.

The outline is inaccurate.

You need to trust the Calvinists on this one.

 

[bsd058]

Thanks bsd058, and as long as we understand that "whosoever" (or which ever suitable word we are comfortable with) means that any and all of humanity have the free choice to be a "whosoever", then we would be in agreement on this issue.

Nobody is born predestined to be lost, nor to be saved, even though there will be people lost and others saved. It comes down to each of us choosing for ourselves.

Thank you for your discussion on this.

Again. This passage says nothing about the will of a person.