Calvinism and Unbelievers

[Apologetic_Warrior]

"But now I say, God’s dealing with the non-elect, is far otherwise, they being under the consideration of eternal justice, even then when in the enjoyment of present grace and mercy. And hence it is that as to their standing before the God of heaven, they are counted dogs, and sows, and devils, even then when before the elect of God themselves they are counted saints and brethren: ‘The dog is turned to his own vomit again, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire’ (2 Peter 2:22). And the reason is, because notwithstanding all their shew before the world, their old nature and corruptions do still bear sway within, which in time also, according to the ordinary judgment of God, is suffered so to shew itself, that they are visible to saints that are elect, as was the case of Simon Magus, and that wicked apostate Judas, who ‘went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us’ (1 John 2:19). They were not elect as we, nor were they sanctified as the elect of God themselves; wherefore eternal justice counts them the sons of perdition, when under their profession. And I say, they being under this eternal justice, it must needs have to do with them in the midst of their profession; and because also it is much offended with them for conniving with their lust, it taketh away from them, and that most righteously, those gifts and graces, and benefits and privileges that present mercy gave them; and not only so, but cuts them off for their iniquity, and layeth them under wrath for ever. They ‘have forsaken the right way, [saith God]—following the way of Baalam the son of Bosor;—these are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest’; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots, ‘for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever’ (2 Peter 2:5, 16, 17; Jude 11–13; John 17:12; Matt 13:12; 25:29; Mark 4:25; Luke 8:18).

These things thus considered, you see,

1. That there is present grace and present mercy, eternal grace and eternal mercy.

2. That the elect are under eternal mercy, and THAT, when under present justice; and that the reprobate is under eternal justice, and THAT when under present mercy.

3. Thus you see again, that the non-elect perish by reason of sin, notwithstanding present mercy, because of eternal justice; and that the elect are preserved from the death, though they sin and are obnoxious to the strokes of present justice, by reason of eternal mercy. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid: ‘He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and compassion on whom he will have compassion’ (Rom 9:15)."

John Bunyan, from "Reprobation Asserted" Chapter 11

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Calvin DOES teach that man has no will, no ability to choose. Sayiong man can choose but only make the wrong choice is not a choice at all, just wordplay.

John Calvin had an important role in the "French Confession" (he certainly endorsed and approved of it, it is said; "Calvin drew this statement into a confession for them, probably with the help of Theodore Beza and Pierre Viret."), in it we read:

Article 09: Original Purity and Fall of Man

"We believe that man was created pure and perfect in the image of God (Gen 1:26; Eccl 7:29; Eph 4:24), and that by his own guilt he fell from the grace which he received (Gen 3:17; Rom 5:12; Eph 2:2-3), and is thus alienated from God (Isa 1:2-4†; 59:2†; Jer 2:13, 17, 21-22†; Eph 4:18†), the fountain of justice and of all good (Gen 2:17†; 3:19†; John 3:19-20†; Rom 5:12, 18†; Eph 2:1-3†), so that his nature is totally corrupt (John 8:34, 43-44†; Rom 1:29-32†; 3:9–18†; 7:5†; 1 John 1:8, 10†). [Impossibility of Natural Religion] And being blinded in mind, and depraved in heart, he has lost all integrity, and there is no good in him (Gen 6:5; 8:21). And although he can still discern good and evil (Rom 1:21; Rom 2:14-15), notwithstanding, that the light he has becomes darkness when he seeks for God, so that he can in nowise approach him by his intelligence and reason (Job 14:4†; Rom 1:21; 1 Cor 2:14). [Necessity of Grace] And although he has a will that incites him to do this or that, yet it is altogether captive to sin (Jer 13:23†), so that he has no other liberty to do right than that which God gives him (Psalms 94:11-12, Isaiah 26:12, Jeremiah 10:23, John 1:4-5, 7; John 3:6, John 6:44, John 6:65, John 8:36, John 15:4, Romans 6:16-18, Romans 7:18, Romans 8:6-7, 1 Corinthians 4:7, 2 Corinthians 3:5, Phil 2:13)."

As others and the above demonstrates, it is YOU Griff that is doing the "wordplay" here. Sorry it is so painfully obvious, when the source directly and plainly contradicts your claim.

 

[hedrick]

It comes down to what you mean by will. (Sorry if that sounds too much like Clinton.)

What is it for someone to be free? I’m going to say things that strongly depend upon an analysis by Jonathan Edwards. In common speech someone is free if no one is forcing them to do something. Holding a gun on someone clearly makes then unfree.

Why do we care about whether someone is free? Clearly we don’t want to hold someone accountable for something that someone else is forcing them to do, because it doesn’t say anything about that person’s own character and values.

But no one claims that God is forcing people to do evil. Just that he’s responsible for the things that lead the person to it. This is ethically very different, because the evil a person does actually does show us about their character. Someone does evil because they are evil.

In daily language when we speak of someone doing something out of their own free choice, the question is only whether it reflects their values and character. No one looks at how their character developed.

Arminians seem to have an intuition that something isn’t free if we an explain how how they got to be the kind of person that would do that kind of thing. But suppose we follow this. Would anyone be responsible for anything? Our character develops from heredity, from the influence of people around us, from the activity of the Holy Spirit, etc. But we don’t choose any of this. That would be circular. Given where we are, we can choose to develop our character further, but we can’t choose our starting point.

My impression is that for many Arminians, anything that can be explained makes us unfree. The only thing that would preserve freedom is pure randomness, because anything else would be understood to undermine freedom. But does freedom really follow from randomness? I don’t think so.

Let’s look at the limits. It’s fine to have a bit of randomness in our lives. It makes things more fun. But where it starts influencing how we live our lives seriously, it becomes not freedom, but insanity. On the other end, I’d say that God has no randomness in his decisions at all. What he chooses is based purely on what he is. His decision-making is completely coherent. Does that mean he isn’t free? I don’t think so. I think as our will becomes more coherent, we are in many ways becoming more free, because our actions more clearly reflect our character and values.

The problem with Arminianism has political as well as theological consequences. If anything that influences how we develop makes us unfree, there are ready-made excuses for every evil action. And as we understand psychology better, so that we can explain more and more of what people do, their ability to make excuses gets better and better. We end up treating people morally as robots, and not as responsible people. Hence the actual moral consequences of Arminianism actually move more in the direction of treating people as robots than in Calvinism.

 

[SinnerInTheHands]

Yes.

 

[ladodgers6]

Would you expose an unbeliever or a recently converted Christian (babe in Christ) to calvinism?

By teaching the Doctrines of Grace.

 

[dms1972]

I'd rather read Calvin for myself, than let someone else explain it to me. I have a sneaking feeling some Calvinists, have neither read much of him or understand him. In any case there is no guarantee someone who reads him understands him entirely. Some read Calvin after having heard about Calvinism, they have already been told in a way what Calvin means, or is saying. This doesn't help in my view to understand him. When I read something I want to know what that writer meant.

 

[ladodgers6]

I'd rather read Calvin for myself, than let someone else explain it to me. I have a sneaking feeling some Calvinists, have neither read much of him or understand him. In any case there is no guarantee someone who reads him understands him entirely. Some read Calvin after having heard about Calvinism, they have already been told in a way what Calvin means, or is saying. This doesn't help in my view to understand him. When I read something I want to know what that writer meant.

Excellent,I encourage all to do the same.Read,research,and study it for yourself.Very good advice.And yes,I do agree that even Calvinists,misrepresent the teachings of Calvin.

 

[dms1972]

That said if someone is very learned in theology (and a serious disciple of Jesus) I would be inclined to at least hear what he says.

I wasn't saying I was going to read him, I may or I may not. In the end it seems to come down to a man saying what the scriptures mean. He may be right in some of what he says, but how can I know where he is right and where he is wrong? Also he may let his 'logic' run away with him at times - that is what I have read about him. The difficulty however is that without already holding to position, or being experienced in biblical interpretation - it would be hard not to simply fall in with what Calvin says - and that I see to be a problem, most who read him don't actually have a firm view on what some chapters of the Bible mean, therefore they succumb to Calvin's interpretation, and it seems to them Calvin is very scriptural.

Is it not simply what Calvin took scripture to mean? I read somewhere its the result several things at work, including Calvin's own piety.

Feel free to disagree with me.

I'd say don't rush into reading him merely out of curiosity. I did and in the end it gets one into a lot of difficulties.

I'd also like to ask about who it is written for?

 

[JM]

Calvinists do not "follow" Calvin but Jesus Christ.

 

[dms1972]

I am sure most of them do. But in terms of how they understand the Bible do they not place a lot of confidence in Calvins interpretation?

 

[ladodgers6]

That said if someone is very learned in theology (and a serious disciple of Jesus) I would be inclined to at least hear what he says.

I wasn't saying I was going to read him, I may or I may not. In the end it seems to come down to a man saying what the scriptures mean. He may be right in some of what he says, but how can I know where he is right and where he is wrong? Also he may let his 'logic' run away with him at times - that is what I have read about him. The difficulty however is that without already holding to position, or being experienced in biblical interpretation - it would be hard not to simply fall in with what Calvin says - and that I see to be a problem, most who read him don't actually have a firm view on what some chapters of the Bible mean, therefore they succumb to Calvin's interpretation, and it seems to them Calvin is very scriptural.

Is it not simply what Calvin took scripture to mean? I read somewhere its the result several things at work, including Calvin's own piety.

Feel free to disagree with me.

I'd say don't rush into reading him merely out of curiosity. I did and in the end it gets one into a lot of difficulties.

I'd also like to ask about who it is written for?

So you make this critique,because you have or have not read Calvin?

 

[hedrick]

Calvin was the best exegete of the Reformation. He’s still quoted even by liberal scholars. But he wasn’t the only one who understood Paul the way he did.

 

[dms1972]

So you make this critique,because you have or have not read Calvin?

I wasn't making any critique. Do my comments read like a critique? It my opinion - I asked how can I know were Calvin is right and were he is wrong - Do I have to make a leap of faith and begin with Calvin as being right?

If I had been making a critique I would have been saying Calvin is right here, and wrong here. So I have read some Calvin, and read other thoughts on him, who have studied him. I tend to prefer to read people who are able to critique him stand a bit apart from him, rather than those who are just agreeing with and praising him, or merely transmitting his teaching.

I have read some of his writting, and I have read other scholars who have studied him. But more importantly I have studied other things besides Calvin. Just reading Calvin isn't going to help someone know if he was right.

Yes in the end it comes down to my preference to some degree.

But in the end is any of this theology or my agreement with it gonna make me a christian?

 

[dms1972]

Calvin was the best exegete of the Reformation.

He had a system and everything had to fit with that - he changed his position on certain points when questioned. Its the making of the Bible fit a neat little system that some humans can comprehend that I question. Its saying the human mind can comprehend God's mind and plans entirely - How could that be possible?

Calvin tried to extend Paul's theology logically. He should have just left things were Paul left it - basically turning from theology and logic to doxology and saying God's 'judgements were unsearchable and his paths were past tracing out' Romans 11:33. Luther stopped were Paul stopped.

Calvin warned people of the danger of trying to probe into the decrees of God and predestination, but then he went and did so himself.

Studying Calvin isn't guaranteed to make one a christian IMO. There have been very humble and helpful calvinists I'd say (Spurgeon for instance, but they usually don't start out Calvinist), but also some very arrogant, superior-minded ones, who think themselves to have the right theology and that they can easily defeat everyone who disagrees.

As I have said at least a couple of times there is a difference between Calvin, and what some of his followers have taught.

I agree there is a lot of helpful stuff in Calvin (and some unhelpful to me logical, mechanical explanations), but as one reads him there is also this temptation for me at least to think he is infalliable. But is any theologian infalliable?

Donald Bloesch a theologian who has studied perhaps dozens of theological writters, has said that "The Calvinist position, especially as transmitted through Reformed orthodoxy, stands in palpable conflict with the New Testament witness."

Thats why I say, calvinists are not always the best people to ask about Calvin - how many I wonder get their understanding of Calvin from TULIP, rather than reading Calvin?

Personally I like to study Calvin after first having an understanding of Luther - kind of like reading Calvin with a Luther lens, or using Luthers theology to interpret him

But I don't know that any of these theologies are that helpful when one is searching.

A question I would have is can everyone reading them today always understand what they meant?

 

[ladodgers6]

I wasn't making any critique. Do my comments read like a critique? It my opinion - I asked how can I know were Calvin is right and were he is wrong - Do I have to make a leap of faith and begin with Calvin as being right?

If I had been making a critique I would have been saying Calvin is right here, and wrong here. So I have read some Calvin, and read other thoughts on him, who have studied him. I tend to prefer to read people who are able to critique him stand a bit apart from him, rather than those who are just agreeing with and praising him, or merely transmitting his teaching.

I have read some of his writting, and I have read other scholars who have studied him. But more importantly I have studied other things besides Calvin. Just reading Calvin isn't going to help someone know if he was right.

Yes in the end it comes down to my preference to some degree.

But in the end is any of this theology or my agreement with it gonna make me a christian?

Well in your opinion, is it okay to read other authors,without this same caution?

 

[dms1972]

Well in your opinion, is it okay to read other authors,without this same caution?

You can read the Bible without this caution

Well I read Calvin without said caution to begin, and look were that has got me.

I know I am contradicting myself a little bit. One needs I think to defer to those who have studied widely, for they know a bit more about the background to each theology. I don't read diehard anti-calvinistic stuff except sometime to see what they are saying, but I don't take it as good scholarship. A lot depends on my current attitude towards Calvinism, sometimes I feel I need to read some criticism of it. But some of it isn't helpful or balanced I agree.

But honestly Calvin's style is quite well... "this is the truth agree or perish!" so its almost like a religion of its own within christianity in some ways.

I don't think theology is the best introduction to christianity, but approaching it that way is a mistake I have to live with. I'd rather be rid of all my theological understandings to be honest.

However there is something comes over me reading Calvin or discussing with some Calvinists that I don't like, its like a ton weight.

Probably no theologian is entirely right. Additionally Luther and Calvin were writting in response to the period, to correct the teaching that was current in the church in those days, they were challenging heresy. Luther had to major heavily on the doctrine of justification, and didn't give as much attention as Paul did to other doctrines. Calvin on the other hand focused on regeneration, to speak to the concerns of Roman Catholics, so I read.

Now feel free to point out all my contradictions and hypocrisy.

 

[ladodgers6]

Please do me a favor! I am a regular Joe,that you meet one day.And the topic of religion comes up.How would you preach the Gospel to me? Or would you preach the Gospel at all,just asking.I do not know unless I ask.

 

[dms1972]

No I do think I would as things are with me right now. I think I might mess it up if I did. I am not a preacher, or a evangelist - so no I wouldn't begin to just preach the gospel at the mention of religion. In fact I have asked the question also what is the Gospel on these forums. I think its best for people to read the Gospel's themselves, or else go to a church and ask a minister. But I can't unfortunately guarantee that in every church they would get help - that was me I grew up asking about christianity, and religious stuff then being asked "do you believe?" to which I often nodded "yes", either not being sure if I did, or being pretty well sure I didn't.



Then later I thought getting into the theology would help me (people told me not to, but I was stubborn, and stuck, because I had nodded my head to indicate yes I beleived), so I got into all ths Calvinism stuff, and more difficulties.Greadually I talked more and more about theology and I suppose became more and more hypocritical for doing so.

So there it is, not sure why you asked, but I think I have asked others the same thing too.

Apparently CH Spurgeon was running round every church too for a while, each time getting answers he couldn't understand or accept, till he went out one night to go to a church, a snow blizzard meant he had to go down a street to get out of it, and he ended up in a different church, it was then that he says he heard the Gospel and was converted.

You can read it here:

http://gospelrelevance.com/2012/01/20/charles-spurgeons-conversion-story/

 

[ladodgers6]

No I do think I would as things are with me right now. I think I might mess it up if I did. I am not a preacher, or a evangelist - so no I wouldn't begin to just preach the gospel at the mention of religion. In fact I have asked the question also what is the Gospel on these forums. I think its best for people to read the Gospel's themselves, or else go to a church and ask a minister. But I can't unfortunately guarantee that in every church they would get help - that was me I grew up asking about christianity, and religious stuff then being asked "do you believe?" to which I often nodded "yes", either not being sure if I did, or being pretty well sure I didn't.

So what's getting you stuck or confused? Is it that you do not know who or what to believe? Is it that you feel you do not have enough faith or works? Because I was reared in many religions prior to becoming a Convinced Calvinist.I was a Mormon,Jehovah Witness,Seventh Day Adventist,Catholic,Pentecostal,Arminian.But I never challenged what I believe and why I believe it.Until a friend (a Calvinist) ask me what do I believe and why? I could not give him a answer because I went along with what was being taught,thinking it was correct.He challenged me to read Calvinism.And when I did,I ask to myself this cannot be correct.I refuted Calvinism because it seems so unfair! But it was always on my mind,I could not accept it.Until one night I said to myself I am going to refute this Calvinism with Scripture.And as I read and studied Calvinism,it was the first time in my life I heard the Pure Gospel of Paul.So I did become a convinced Calvinist.My advice for anyone who wants to learn Calvinism.Start with Justification,and then when you are grounded by understanding it.Then proceed to the meat like Election,and predestination.If you do not the opposite you will be choked by the meat.

Then later I thought getting into the theology would help me (people told me not to, but I was stubborn, and stuck, because I had nodded my head to indicate yes I beleived), so I got into all ths Calvinism stuff, and more difficulties.Greadually I talked more and more about theology and I suppose became more and more hypocritical for doing so.

I love theology,the study of God.This is where we grow in knowledge.So that we can find and defend the truth.

So there it is, not sure why you asked, but I think I have asked others the same thing too.

What is the Pure Gospel that Paul preached,that God justified the UNGODLY,not the righteous.That when we are saved in Christ there is absolutely nothing good in us to deserve it.That God sent his Son to save his enemies who are hostile toward God.The Gospel is that Christ has dome for us,what we could not do for ourselves.And this Gospel is God's gift,free from any obligations on our part,and is received through Faith Alone apart from any works on our part.In other words we receive this Gift from God with empty hands.

Apparently CH Spurgeon was running round every church too for a while, each time getting answers he couldn't understand or accept, till he went out one night to go to a church, a snow blizzard meant he had to go down a street to get out of it, and he ended up in a different church, it was then that he says he heard the Gospel and was converted.

You can read it here:

http://gospelrelevance.com/2012/01/20/charles-spurgeons-conversion-story/

Maybe the Holy Spirit lead Spurgeon down this road,because it seem to me,that Spurgeon conscience knew what he heard was not the Pure Gospel.Because the Pure Gospel is the sweet drink for those who thirst for the truth! God justifies the UNGODLY (Romans 4:5).

 

[dms1972]

In my view Calvinism is a theological system that it can be easy to substitute for faith
I am sure there are many genuine christians who are also Calvinist, but why can one just become a christian reading the Gospels?

I think people misunderstand Calvinism present it wrongly quite often. I don't want to criticise it much not having read a lot of it. But I do think there is a difference between having an understanding of Calvin, and of Calvinism learnt by the 'five points'. I have sat under the preaching of the five points - it hasn't helped me - I can't believe when its presented like that - I go into it too much. I just don't think a set of theological abstractions, and proof texts is the way the Gospel should be presented.

Maybe the Holy Spirit lead Spurgeon down this road,because it seem to me,that Spurgeon conscience knew what he heard was not the Pure Gospel.Because the Pure Gospel is the sweet drink for those who thirst for the truth! God justifies the UNGODLY (Romans 4:5).

I just think it was providential happening with the snow, he only went into the church for shelter. A combination then of providence and the Holy Spirit once he got in.

This is another link, which has a bit more detail

http://www.preceptaustin.org/c_h_spurgeon's_testimony.htm

But he didn't hear Calvinism preached in his conversion, it was a unlearned shoemaker or someone of that sort who preached, and it was a primative methodist church I am not sure but I don't think they would have been calvinist.

Calvin was highly learned, and he wrote in the manner for other very learned. He's not for everyone IMO.