What's the big deal about calvinisms?

Jesusthekingofking said:

Does the Calvinist think they have found something others don't know?

Click to expand...

It's hard to say.

Still, for me as a Catholic, there are few experiences weirder than being told you follow "the traditions of men" by a Calvinist.

Jesusthekingofking said:

Does the Calvinist think they have found something others don't know? In my research about the tulip of Calvinism, I found that I can't be 5 points it's against the bible. I wonder why some Calvinist insist Calvinism is a perfect and biblical framework, it's hard to read some text using Calvinism.

Click to expand...

I think most Calvinists are not true 5 pointers. I went to a Calvinist school for my undergrad degree and most of us were like 3- 3 1/2 pointers. It is hard to accept the implications of all 5.

WanderedHome said:

I think most Calvinists are not true 5 pointers. I went to a Calvinist school for my undergrad degree and most of us were like 3- 3 1/2 pointers. It is hard to accept the implications of all 5.

Click to expand...

The most important point is double predestination. Was it one of the 3-3 1/2 points they believed in?

WanderedHome said:

I think most Calvinists are not true 5 pointers. I went to a Calvinist school for my undergrad degree and most of us were like 3- 3 1/2 pointers. It is hard to accept the implications of all 5.

Click to expand...

Not really. I'm a 5 pointer.

Jesusthekingofking said:

Does the Calvinist think they have found something others don't know? In my research about the tulip of Calvinism, I found that I can't be 5 points it's against the bible. I wonder why some Calvinist insist Calvinism is a perfect and biblical framework, it's hard to read some text using Calvinism.

Click to expand...

There is a Calvinist forum here you can ask questions in:

Ask a Calvinist

Or debate if you prefer:

Debate with a Calvinist

I speculate that a lot of Calvinists are with a more correct or sound theology (including that from John Calvin himself), except for the part concerning predestination. To put it another way, Calvinists can be more sound theology if they fix their predestination view onto Calvinism which however is not correct.

So I simply think that it is fine if they have an incorrect concept of one and the only term "predestination" but can be sound in the rest of the biblical knowledge.

Predestination is not a new concept. It is a Jewish argument among the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes. Calvinism is just a re-pickup of the Essene stance which believes that freewill is more of a delusion while destination is absolute. Sadducees on the other hand are all for freewill but no predestination.

Pharisees are in between, they believe that somehow freewill is harmonized with predestination. The biblical term "predestination" is from Paul the Pharisee, it is thus no point for Calvinists to adapt a Essene stance while the term is actually from an elite Pharisee.

Andrewn said:

The most important point is double predestination. Was it one of the 3-3 1/2 points they believed in?

Click to expand...

That was probably the most problematic one. We would acknowledge it as right because that's what we were told was correct by the professors who were required to teach Calvinism as true (even some of them weren't fully convinced)... but we certainly had many informal debates about it amongst ourselves. Many actually denied double predestination as a misunderstanding of single predestination. I believe I even read an article one time by R.C. Sproul that denied dp.

WanderedHome said:

Many actually denied double predestination as a misunderstanding of single predestination.

Click to expand...

I realize that Lutherans, among other, confess belief in Single Predestination. But logically, there is no such a thing. You have to have a belief about those who are not predestined: either they cannot be saved (Double Predestination) or they can be saved (Arminianism). Sure, you can say, "I don't know." And one might as well say "I don't know" about the whole 5 points.

Andrewn said:

I realize that Lutherans, among other, confess belief in Single Predestination. But logically, there is no such a thing. You have to have a belief about those who are not predestined: either they cannot be saved (Double Predestination) or they can be saved (Arminianism). Sure, you can say, "I don't know." And one might as well say "I don't know" about the whole 5 points.

Click to expand...

Well, the explanation was that God chose certain people He would give extra grace to, but everyone else was simply left to their own faith, not that He specifically "destined" them to hell. I think saying this was just because they couldn't bear to accept that God might create someone for the sole purpose of them being tortured for eternity... But John Calvin himself explicitly taught double predestination in his Institutes.
However, as Orthodox, we don't claim Calvinism (none of the 5 points) or Arminianism.

I get where Calvinists are coming from, biblically and rationally, I just think they have made some serious blunders.

It is reasonable to think that if God has predestined us to salvation in Christ, that it must also follow that He therefore hasn't predestined others, and if God hasn't predestined them, then--such as looking at Romans ch. 9 in isolation (a big no-no I'd argue)--that must mean some people God created to be objects of His wrath. Indeed, that God predestined some to be objects of His wrath.

It's reasonable, I even understand where they come from biblically. But, it fundamentally fails at grasping the depth and universality of Christ's atonement and work, of God's grace, and our salvation in Him. It highlights some of the right things in Scripture, but then uses reason to dismiss the things that are inconvenient, and makes rational leaps where Scripture is silent. That results in bad theology.

Just to be clear, the Arminians make the same kinds of mistakes.

-CryptoLutheran

WanderedHome said:

However, as Orthodox, we don't claim Calvinism (none of the 5 points) or Arminianism.

Click to expand...

I think Arminianism is very close to Orthodox theology, except for the 7 sacraments. What are your objections to Arminianism?

ViaCrucis said:

Just to be clear, the Arminians make the same kinds of mistakes.

Click to expand...

What mistakes to Arminians make? What are your objections to Arminianism?

Andrewn said:

What mistakes to Arminians make? What are your objections to Arminianism?

Click to expand...

The way in which Arminianism makes similar mistakes is by noticing some of the Scriptures Calvinists seem to dismiss and accepting those, but then also dismissing Scriptures which become inconvenient for the theology. This results in the same kind of net effect: A systematic theology that works on paper, but just isn't biblical.

This is understandable, the temptation to want to synthesize a coherent system of theology, where the whole and its parts all make sense together is strong. It's what we want to do as human beings with everything--we like doing this, to categorize, to catalogue, to systematize, synthesize, to take many disparate ideas and make them a cohesive whole that we can then wrap our minds around and digest and explain easily.

The problem is that when we look at the Bible, we actually come across ideas that really don't want to work together--they are irregular shaped pieces that don't want to fit into the nice, tidy, little holes we've carved out. So what is one to do with irregular shaped pieces that we don't know what to do with? Well the easiest thing to do is to ignore them, and if we can't ignore them, to maybe chisel at them and then force them into the holes we've made.

This is why, at least from a Lutheran POV, both Calvinism and Arminianism are getting things significantly wrong: they end up with irregular pieces that they either need to ignore or try to force into the system. The Lutheran approach is to say, "Yes, those are irregular pieces, and we don't know what to do with them, but we will believe them as they stand, even if they seem to conflict and disagree with these other pieces over here." That is, when Scripture says A and also says B, and we have no idea how to make A and B work together, we can accept that we just don't know how A and B work together, and won't try and make them work together. If that makes it sound like we contradict ourselves, that is fine.

It's not about having a systematic theology that all makes sense by its own internal consistency.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

The Lutheran approach is to say, "Yes, those are irregular pieces, and we don't know what to do with them, but we will believe them as they stand, even if they seem to conflict and disagree with these other pieces over here." That is, when Scripture says A and also says B, and we have no idea how to make A and B work together, we can accept that we just don't know how A and B work together, and won't try and make them work together. If that makes it sound like we contradict ourselves, that is fine.

Click to expand...

If my understanding is correct, Lutherans believe that Jesus' atonement is universal and that everybody can be saved. This ultimately means they have more agreement with the Arminian position, even if there are differences. As NT Wright frequently admits there is a mystery regarding Predestination.

Andrewn said:

If my understanding is correct, Lutherans believe that Jesus' atonement is universal and that everybody can be saved. This ultimately means they have more agreement with the Arminian position, even if there are differences. As NT Wright frequently admits there is a mystery regarding Predestination.

Click to expand...

It depends on which Lutheran body a person belongs to.

Andrewn said:

If my understanding is correct, Lutherans believe that Jesus' atonement is universal and that everybody can be saved. This ultimately means they have more agreement with the Arminian position, even if there are differences. As NT Wright frequently admits there is a mystery regarding Predestination.

Click to expand...

Objectively speaking, Christ's atonement is universal--that means everyone is justified (Romans 5:18). The question is then how does the objective work of Christ become subjective, i.e., how does it become ours--how does God appropriate it to us. And the answer to that is through Word and Sacrament.

It may not be obvious, but in essence the Lutheran position is that when Christ died for everyone, He died for everyone, objectively, full stop. But the Arminian position is more that when Christ died for everyone, He died for everyone only in potential. In order to be saved one must, in a sense, complete the transaction by accepting or choosing Jesus. The Lutheran position is that the transaction is perfect and complete, already done; the question is simply how do I personally benefit?

Here's how we say it in our Confessions,

"For neither you nor I could ever know anything of Christ, or believe on Him, and obtain Him for our Lord, unless it were offered to us and granted to our hearts by the Holy Ghost through the preaching of the Gospel. The work is done and accomplished; for Christ has acquired and gained the treasure for us by His suffering, death, resurrection, etc. But if the work remained concealed so that no one knew of it, then it would be in vain and lost. That this treasure, therefore, might not lie buried, but be appropriated and enjoyed, God has caused the Word to go forth and be proclaimed, in which He gives the Holy Ghost to bring this treasure home and appropriate it to us." - The Large Catechism

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

the Arminian position is more that when Christ died for everyone, He died for everyone only in potential. In order to be saved one must, in a sense, complete the transaction by accepting or choosing Jesus. The Lutheran position is that the transaction is perfect and complete, already done; the question is simply how do I personally benefit?

Click to expand...

I may be missing something but I don't see a significant different between the two positions, only that that the same concept is expressed differently by the 2 groups. Also, I find Arminius to be close theologically to Melanchthon. The following article discusses this to some degree:

The Common Ground of Lutherans and Arminians With Regard to the Free Will of Men

Jesusthekingofking said:

But did the bible talk about God gave free will to human mankind to accept or reject Jesus?

Click to expand...

I think the following quotation answers the question:

"Yet in reality the Orthodox teaching is very straightforward, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in" (Revelation 3:20). God knocks, but waits for man to open the door--He does not break it down. The grace of God invites all but compels none. In the words of Saint John Chrysostom: "God never draws anyone to Himself by force and violence. He wishes all men to be saved, but forces no on" (Sermon on the words 'Saul, Saul...)."

The Free Will of Man According to the Holy Orthodox Christian Church — St. Andrew Greek orthodox Church