I'd like more info on this if anyone can help. I dont understand the meaning of the calvinistic belief
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Calvinism
- Thread starter GirlForChrist
- Start date
tcampen
Veteran
One of the main aspects of Calvinism that separates it from other forms of Christianity, is the belief that God alone is responsible for whether a person is saved or not, and thru His omniscience, knows who that will be since before time began. Again, salvation is 100% god's work, 0% man's doing. This position essentially also removes the concept of free will from our lives. The ultra-Calvinist position would be no even bother witnessing to others since God already knows who's going to be saved or not.
This is contrasted with those Christians who believe it is up to the individual to accept Christ on their own as their lord and savior and become saved that way. It takes something for the person to do - namely accept the price Jesus already paid for salvation. While this requires free will, there still remains the unresolvable dilemma between god's omniscience and man's free will.
Obviously both sides use the scripture in support of their positions, and although I subscribe to neither which would make be an impartial referee as to who has the better argument, I find they both have sophistocated and well thought out ideas on the matter of salvation.
Hope this helps.
This is contrasted with those Christians who believe it is up to the individual to accept Christ on their own as their lord and savior and become saved that way. It takes something for the person to do - namely accept the price Jesus already paid for salvation. While this requires free will, there still remains the unresolvable dilemma between god's omniscience and man's free will.
Obviously both sides use the scripture in support of their positions, and although I subscribe to neither which would make be an impartial referee as to who has the better argument, I find they both have sophistocated and well thought out ideas on the matter of salvation.
Hope this helps.
Upvote
0
Calvinism has a rich and complex history and I can't explain it briefly and do it justice. But here's an attempt. It derives from the theology of St. Augustine in the late 4th and early 5th centuries, but it differs from him on a number of points (I won't go into that here). The theology we call "Calvinism" was held by a number of theologians in the 16th century (Martin Bucer, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Theodore Beza, etc.), but John Calvin's formulation of it became classic and his name got stuck to it. Actually in his own day "Calvinism" referred mainly to his theology of the Eucharist. If you were a Calvinist you believed that Christ was truly but spiritually present in the Lord's Supper, as opposed to the Lutherans and Catholics who thought Christ was physically present, and the Zwinglians who thought the Supper was basically a memorial in which we commune with Christ by faith. In that sense, the Anglican 39 Articles, and the founder of Methodism John Wesley, were Calvinist, although few Anglicans today are Calvinists and Methodists think of themselves as the arch anti-Calvinists!
Also, what we call "Calvinism" was defined more closely after Calvin's time, so Calvin didn't actually dot all the i's and cross all the t's. The traditional formula for Calvinism is called "TULIP," and it has five main points:
Total depravity. This means that because of the Fall humans are unable to please God, or to do anything that is truly good. They can do things that have some value, even noble and heroic things, but their motives will always be basically self-seeking in some way. Of course, the big question this raises is whether the Fall itself was ordained by God. Calvin didn't accept a distinction between God causing things and permitting them to happen, but later Calvinists brought that distinction back. Then they argued over whether God permitted the Fall to happen in order to redeem some human beings from their lost condition (which is called supralapsarianism), or whether He chose to redeem the elect as a _response_ to the Fall which He had foreseen (this is called infralapsarianism, and is much closer to what non-Calvinists believe).
Unconditional election. This means that God mercifully chose to save _some_ human beings out of the mess we had made of ourselves. Here the big problem is, what do you do about the people God _didn't_ choose? Some modern Calvinists avoid this by taking the universalist route--God saves everyone--but for most Calvinists historically this wasn't an option. The view that God actually predestines some people to be lost is called "double predestination," while the view that He simply chooses to save some while letting the others go their own way (which means that they will be lost) is called "single predestination." But it isn't that simple--many Calvinists, including Calvin, speak of God predestining some to damnation but wouldn't say that He does this in the same way that He chooses some to salvation (in other words, while His choice is involved in the damnation of the reprobate, the choice consists simply of letting them go their own way). This is sometimes called "asymmetrical double predestination." Many, perhaps most Calvinists (especially today) say that the whole thing is a mystery and we shouldn't speculate about it. The best way to sum it up is the statement of Charles Spurgeon (a great 19th-century Calvinistic Baptist preacher): "If you are saved, you are saved because God chose you; if you are lost, you are lost by your own fault." [Spurgeon didn't say "lost," but the computer won't let me quote the word he did say.]
Limited Atonement: This means that Christ died not for the human race as a whole but for the specific human beings that the Father had chosen. Not all Calvinists hold this--it's debated whether Calvin himself did. Probably he didn't really pose the question to himself. The argument for this is that it means that Christ's death is effectual--all those for whom He died (by name) will be saved. Again, you can interpret this to mean that _everyone_ will be saved, but this isn't the traditional view!
Irresistible grace: This means that the Holy Spirit so moves the hearts of the elect that all of them will inevitably repent and believe. This, like other features of Calvinism, seems to violate free will, but it depends on your philosophy of the will. Calvinist (and Augustinian) philosophers have traditionally argued that if we choose what we want to choose, then we are free. That we can't control our wants is a self-evident fact of life--it doesn't negate our freedom or make our choices meaningless.
Perseverance of the Saints: This is the most obvious way in which Calvinism differs from Augustine's theology and that of his medieval followers (including Luther). Augustine had believed that some who receive grace (through baptism) later fall away and are lost, because they were not elect. Calvinism holds that all those who are regenerate (born again) by God's grace will persevere to the end and be saved. This is the one bit of Calvinism that many evangelicals hold on to, even though they have abandoned all the rest of the system. It's certainly the most comforting aspect of Calvinism, though the least traditional. It means that Calvinists can't hold the traditional view that we are born again in baptism, because that would mean that all the baptized are saved.
Sorry if this was too long-winded. I'd be happy to answer further questions as I have time. I'm not a Calvinist myself, but I study the Reformation and am writing my Ph.D. dissertation on Martin Bucer, who was a friend and colleague of Calvin and may possibly have invented the Perseverance of the Saints doctrine (though I haven't ruled out Zwingli).
In Christ,
Edwin
Also, what we call "Calvinism" was defined more closely after Calvin's time, so Calvin didn't actually dot all the i's and cross all the t's. The traditional formula for Calvinism is called "TULIP," and it has five main points:
Total depravity. This means that because of the Fall humans are unable to please God, or to do anything that is truly good. They can do things that have some value, even noble and heroic things, but their motives will always be basically self-seeking in some way. Of course, the big question this raises is whether the Fall itself was ordained by God. Calvin didn't accept a distinction between God causing things and permitting them to happen, but later Calvinists brought that distinction back. Then they argued over whether God permitted the Fall to happen in order to redeem some human beings from their lost condition (which is called supralapsarianism), or whether He chose to redeem the elect as a _response_ to the Fall which He had foreseen (this is called infralapsarianism, and is much closer to what non-Calvinists believe).
Unconditional election. This means that God mercifully chose to save _some_ human beings out of the mess we had made of ourselves. Here the big problem is, what do you do about the people God _didn't_ choose? Some modern Calvinists avoid this by taking the universalist route--God saves everyone--but for most Calvinists historically this wasn't an option. The view that God actually predestines some people to be lost is called "double predestination," while the view that He simply chooses to save some while letting the others go their own way (which means that they will be lost) is called "single predestination." But it isn't that simple--many Calvinists, including Calvin, speak of God predestining some to damnation but wouldn't say that He does this in the same way that He chooses some to salvation (in other words, while His choice is involved in the damnation of the reprobate, the choice consists simply of letting them go their own way). This is sometimes called "asymmetrical double predestination." Many, perhaps most Calvinists (especially today) say that the whole thing is a mystery and we shouldn't speculate about it. The best way to sum it up is the statement of Charles Spurgeon (a great 19th-century Calvinistic Baptist preacher): "If you are saved, you are saved because God chose you; if you are lost, you are lost by your own fault." [Spurgeon didn't say "lost," but the computer won't let me quote the word he did say.]
Limited Atonement: This means that Christ died not for the human race as a whole but for the specific human beings that the Father had chosen. Not all Calvinists hold this--it's debated whether Calvin himself did. Probably he didn't really pose the question to himself. The argument for this is that it means that Christ's death is effectual--all those for whom He died (by name) will be saved. Again, you can interpret this to mean that _everyone_ will be saved, but this isn't the traditional view!
Irresistible grace: This means that the Holy Spirit so moves the hearts of the elect that all of them will inevitably repent and believe. This, like other features of Calvinism, seems to violate free will, but it depends on your philosophy of the will. Calvinist (and Augustinian) philosophers have traditionally argued that if we choose what we want to choose, then we are free. That we can't control our wants is a self-evident fact of life--it doesn't negate our freedom or make our choices meaningless.
Perseverance of the Saints: This is the most obvious way in which Calvinism differs from Augustine's theology and that of his medieval followers (including Luther). Augustine had believed that some who receive grace (through baptism) later fall away and are lost, because they were not elect. Calvinism holds that all those who are regenerate (born again) by God's grace will persevere to the end and be saved. This is the one bit of Calvinism that many evangelicals hold on to, even though they have abandoned all the rest of the system. It's certainly the most comforting aspect of Calvinism, though the least traditional. It means that Calvinists can't hold the traditional view that we are born again in baptism, because that would mean that all the baptized are saved.
Sorry if this was too long-winded. I'd be happy to answer further questions as I have time. I'm not a Calvinist myself, but I study the Reformation and am writing my Ph.D. dissertation on Martin Bucer, who was a friend and colleague of Calvin and may possibly have invented the Perseverance of the Saints doctrine (though I haven't ruled out Zwingli).
In Christ,
Edwin
Upvote
0
The biggest aspect, as tcampen pointed out, is predestination, or election regarding who can see Heaven and who can't. Edwin did a fine job explaining the TULIP. That is the crux that all Calvinists will refer to whenever confronted with opposing views. All interpretation of scripture (regarding salvation) will always fall back to these ideas, and those ideas all rest on one thing: God's absolute sovereignty.
The problem is, Calvinists (and Arminians) view election as an individual thing. Election is never recorded in the Bible for any one person as a means to their soul's salvation. It was always for a task here on earth. Now it stands to reason if a person was elected for a task (example, Abraham elected to father the Jewish people/Jacob elected over Esau/Paul elected to evangelize the Gentiles) and the person follows through in obedience, well, it is safe to assume that obedience has its eternal rewards.
However, some have been elected by God for tasks and failed (Saul elected to be king/Judas elected to be an apostle) and we can assume neither are in Heaven, based on their actions. But my point is election of individuals is never for salvation, but for assignment.
The election of the Church is corporate. The very word "church" is a corporate term, as is "body" and so on. The backbone of Calvinism has to be Romans 9 (and Romans 8:29, 30) and what they fail to see is the entire conversation is dealing with God electing the Church (corporate) over Israel (corporate) as His ambassadors on earth, and how the Jews didn't like it...
Once you realize God's electing purpose is a corporate thing, the Church as a whole has been foreknown, and predestined, justified, etc. and God is sovereign and no one can change that, then you can see how freewill can come into play. Individuals can choose to go along for the ride, or not. But regardless of what I choose or you choose or a Muslim chooses, God has forordained the Body of Christ (church) to reign with Him.
To understand the NT election of the Church as God's people (and the word "people" is a corporate term), you have to understand the OT election of Israel as God's people... That's the key.
I think I may have just opened up a can of worms...
BTW-This was my first post. Hi all!
The problem is, Calvinists (and Arminians) view election as an individual thing. Election is never recorded in the Bible for any one person as a means to their soul's salvation. It was always for a task here on earth. Now it stands to reason if a person was elected for a task (example, Abraham elected to father the Jewish people/Jacob elected over Esau/Paul elected to evangelize the Gentiles) and the person follows through in obedience, well, it is safe to assume that obedience has its eternal rewards.
However, some have been elected by God for tasks and failed (Saul elected to be king/Judas elected to be an apostle) and we can assume neither are in Heaven, based on their actions. But my point is election of individuals is never for salvation, but for assignment.
The election of the Church is corporate. The very word "church" is a corporate term, as is "body" and so on. The backbone of Calvinism has to be Romans 9 (and Romans 8:29, 30) and what they fail to see is the entire conversation is dealing with God electing the Church (corporate) over Israel (corporate) as His ambassadors on earth, and how the Jews didn't like it...
Once you realize God's electing purpose is a corporate thing, the Church as a whole has been foreknown, and predestined, justified, etc. and God is sovereign and no one can change that, then you can see how freewill can come into play. Individuals can choose to go along for the ride, or not. But regardless of what I choose or you choose or a Muslim chooses, God has forordained the Body of Christ (church) to reign with Him.
To understand the NT election of the Church as God's people (and the word "people" is a corporate term), you have to understand the OT election of Israel as God's people... That's the key.
I think I may have just opened up a can of worms...
BTW-This was my first post. Hi all!
Upvote
0
Understand you can be "Calvinistic" without being a 5 point Calvinist. I am a Fundamental Baptist and would not claim to be a Calvinist in the sense that I would not agree with Limited Atonement or Irresistable Grace or go too far with predestination.
I think a lot of these points are devisive between fundamental Christians and take up too much of our time and effort for discussion.
I would separate from hyper-Calvinists who do not believe witnessing is necessary because the elect will get saved on their own. I do believe that God knows who and who will not accept Him, but I also believe he leaves the choice to accept Him up to us. This may seem paradoxical but I think stuff like this is beyond our temporal minds and cannot be understood but only accepted in faith!
I think a lot of these points are devisive between fundamental Christians and take up too much of our time and effort for discussion.
I would separate from hyper-Calvinists who do not believe witnessing is necessary because the elect will get saved on their own. I do believe that God knows who and who will not accept Him, but I also believe he leaves the choice to accept Him up to us. This may seem paradoxical but I think stuff like this is beyond our temporal minds and cannot be understood but only accepted in faith!
Upvote
0
Superman said:That is not a Calvinist, that is an Arminian.
To be honest I'm not really sure what Arminian is. I don't think it encompases my beliefs either.
I believe that both predestination and free will are possible at the same time. The reason that this doesn't make sense to us is because we are bound by time and relate everything to a timeline. God is omnipresent in everyplace at every moment in time. He has created time for us and does not live within its constraints.
We have both chosen and been chosen to God who does not see us as getting saved in the future or choosing Him in the past. Salvation is a mystery of God and should really not be minimized to our feeble explanations in logic beyond the basic plan for atonement.
We sinned.
Christ died sacrificially.
His blood covers our sin.
God accepts us as clean.
We must also not neglect the great commission to go and tell the world about the gospel. That command is very clear in Scripture and is neglected by some strains of Calvinists because "all the elect will be saved anyway."
BEWARE of adding or removing from the Scripture!!!
Upvote
0
tractrack-online said:
Just for clarification, Jacob Arminius used to be a Calvinist. However, he came to believe that individuals were not predestined for salvation based on arbitrary decisions by God (Calvinism) but that in eternity past God saw who would have faith in Him of their own free will, so God predestined them to be saved. Thus, this belief system got the name "Arminianism."
So the battle between the Calvinists (no free will) and the Arminians (free will) has been raging for the last 500 years... I doubt it will be resolved on this board.
Upvote
0
Superman said:Just for clarification, Jacob Arminius used to be a Calvinist. However, he came to believe that individuals were not predestined for salvation based on arbitrary decisions by God (Calvinism) but that in eternity past God saw who would have faith in Him of their own free will, so God predestined them to be saved. Thus, this belief system got the name "Arminianism."
Thanks for the clarification. I guess I do stand at that point for Armenianism (though I do believe that the Holy Spirit moves in men's hearts too). What other beliefs do they hold to?
I agree we will not resolve the dispute and I have no desire to. As Christians we should put our effort into spreading the gospel and glorifying God! Arguing amongst ourselves accomplishes neither!
Upvote
0
tractrack-online said:
Basically as I said, God uses foreknowledge to predestin people for salvation, which allows for man to have a free will, God just knew ahead of time how man would use his free will and God makes decisions on that.
Generally speaking the Baptists (although I know some Calvinist Baptists), Pentacostals, Methodists, Charasmatics and so on would fall under Arminianism. Not all Arminians agree whether or not a person can forsake their salvation and backslide, but all would agree that man at least has the free will to decide whether or not he wants to serve God initially.
And Arminians do believe strongly that no one can be saved unless the Holy Spirit first convicts them to repent. But Calvinists believe that the Holy Spirit's call cannot be shrugged off, and you WILL repent, whereas the Arminians believe the call can be ignored.
Hope that helps.
Upvote
0
Superman said:
It does! Thanks for the clarification. Where do you stand on witnessing and hyperCalvinism?
Upvote
0
tractrack-online said:
Im not a Calvinist, so I disagree with their soteriology, especially Hyper-Calvinism. Although I will say that if you take Calvinism to its logical extent, Hyper-Calvinism makes sense.
But I disagree with Calvinism.
Witnessing is of paramount importance. The last thing Jesus told the disciples was to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.
I wouldnt exactly say Im an Arminian either, although I believe in free will. I will repost something I wrote explaining what I believe regarding election:
The problem is, Calvinists (and Arminians) view election as an individual thing. Election is never recorded in the Bible for any one person as a means to their soul's salvation. It was always for a task here on earth. Now it stands to reason if a person was elected for a task (example, Abraham elected to father the Jewish people/Jacob elected over Esau/Paul elected to evangelize the Gentiles) and the person follows through in obedience, well, it is safe to assume that obedience has its eternal rewards.
However, some have been elected by God for tasks and failed (Saul elected to be king/Judas elected to be an apostle) and we can assume neither are in Heaven, based on their actions. But my point is election of individuals is never for salvation, but for assignment.
The election of the Church is corporate. The very word "church" is a corporate term, as is "body" and so on. The backbone of Calvinism has to be Romans 9 (and Romans 8:29, 30) and what they fail to see is the entire conversation is dealing with God electing the Church (corporate) over Israel (corporate) as His ambassadors on earth, and how the Jews didn't like it...
Once you realize God's electing purpose is a corporate thing, the Church as a whole has been foreknown, and predestined, justified, etc. and God is sovereign and no one can change that, then you can see how freewill can come into play. Individuals can choose to go along for the ride, or not. But regardless of what I choose or you choose or a Muslim chooses, God has forordained the Body of Christ (Church) to reign with Him.
To understand the NT election of the Church as God's people (and the word "people" is a corporate term), you have to understand the OT election of Israel as God's people... That's the key.
Upvote
0
Superman said:Im not a Calvinist, so I disagree with their soteriology, especially Hyper-Calvinism. Although I will say that if you take Calvinism to its logical extent, Hyper-Calvinism makes sense.
But I disagree with Calvinism.
Witnessing is of paramount importance. The last thing Jesus told the disciples was to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.
I wouldnt exactly say Im an Arminian either, although I believe in free will. I will repost something I wrote explaining what I believe regarding election:
The problem is, Calvinists (and Arminians) view election as an individual thing. Election is never recorded in the Bible for any one person as a means to their soul's salvation. It was always for a task here on earth. Now it stands to reason if a person was elected for a task (example, Abraham elected to father the Jewish people/Jacob elected over Esau/Paul elected to evangelize the Gentiles) and the person follows through in obedience, well, it is safe to assume that obedience has its eternal rewards.
However, some have been elected by God for tasks and failed (Saul elected to be king/Judas elected to be an apostle) and we can assume neither are in Heaven, based on their actions. But my point is election of individuals is never for salvation, but for assignment.
The election of the Church is corporate. The very word "church" is a corporate term, as is "body" and so on. The backbone of Calvinism has to be Romans 9 (and Romans 8:29, 30) and what they fail to see is the entire conversation is dealing with God electing the Church (corporate) over Israel (corporate) as His ambassadors on earth, and how the Jews didn't like it...
Once you realize God's electing purpose is a corporate thing, the Church as a whole has been foreknown, and predestined, justified, etc. and God is sovereign and no one can change that, then you can see how freewill can come into play. Individuals can choose to go along for the ride, or not. But regardless of what I choose or you choose or a Muslim chooses, God has forordained the Body of Christ (Church) to reign with Him.
To understand the NT election of the Church as God's people (and the word "people" is a corporate term), you have to understand the OT election of Israel as God's people... That's the key.
Well though out and well said. Call me whatever you like, but I believe I agree with your beliefs
Why God would save any of us sinners and why one man is saved and not another are both mysteries of God which we'll have to wait to find out. For now "Go ye into all the world!"
Upvote
0
Similar threads
