How can anyone like Calvinism?

[ozso]

The biggest problem I'd have with becoming a Calvinist is accepting the idea that God predestined most of humanity to damnation. It's something I'd have to force myself or let myself be talked into. As far as monergism vs synergism or Calvinism vs Arminianism goes I'm probably somewhere in the middle. To me salvation is more than just being saved from hell and going to heaven. Salvation is talked about all though the Old Testament without there being a system of saved from the Lake of Fire and going to Heaven. So with thinking more along the lines of earthly salvation from the pitfalls of sin, then it's very much synergistic. God and I are working as a team in a joint effort to achieve progressively better results. And not just for myself, but for those around me. But I know also that I really need the intervention of the Holy Spirit.

 

[ozso]

@The Liturgist what do you think about inclusionism as espoused by Billy Graham and John Paul II? That the grace of God overflows to those who aren't born again Christians, but have a heart for God?

Robert Schuller interviewing Billy Graham in 1997

Schuller: Tell me, what do you think is the future of Christianity?

Graham: Well, Christianity and being a true believer--you know, I think there's the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the Body of Christ. And I don't think that we're going to see a great sweeping revival, that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. I think James answered that, the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God's purpose for this age is to call out a people for His name. And that's what God is doing today, He's calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don't have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they're going to be with us in heaven.

Schuller: What, what I hear you saying that it's possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and soul and life, even if they've been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying?

Graham: Yes, it is, because I believe that. I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they've believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they've tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived.

Schuller: I'm so thrilled to hear you say this. There's a wideness in God's mercy.

Graham: There is. There definitely is.

Here's the video of the interview.

Well know Calvinist John MacArthur really blew his top over that.

 

[hedrick]

I’m actually sort of undecided on these issues. I’m still not sure open theism is wrong. But if we take a conventional view of God, I think predestination pretty much follows. God decided what kind of world to make, knowing what the result would be.

Calvinism has never claimed that God predestined the lost in the same sense as the saved. With the saved, he takes specific acts to save them. He doesn’t give some negative version of the Holy Spirit to the lost to corrupt them. Indeed he does the same kinds of things he does for the saved, but with the knowledge that it won’t be enough.

I think with an omnipotent God, who set up the universe and governs it, it’s hard to define a difference between ordaining something and just allowing it. He is responsible for everything that happens.

That does not mean that he said “I want X to be damned. Let’s make sure we set things up so he doesn’t have a chance.” It means that he chose a plan that would result in X being damned, despite the fact that he heard the Gospel, and God gave him the types of help he gives others.

Almost all Calvinists also accept compatibilism. That means that they think we can understand events on several levels. On one level, events happen because of responsible human choice. But looked at from God’s point of view, these things are all part of his plan, so he is responsible. Both explanations are true. This is a view that Calvin describes in the Institutes.

 

[ozso]

I had forgotten that I had come to the conclusion that since God is omniscient, he of course knew ahead of time what choices we were going to make and where we would spend eternity.

 

[JM]

Deleted.

Just a waste of time to respond.

 

[The Liturgist]

@The Liturgist what do you think about inclusionism as espoused by Billy Graham and John Paul II? That the grace of God overflows to those who aren't born again Christians, but have a heart for God?

Robert Schuller interviewing Billy Graham in 1997

Schuller: Tell me, what do you think is the future of Christianity?

Graham: Well, Christianity and being a true believer--you know, I think there's the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the Body of Christ. And I don't think that we're going to see a great sweeping revival, that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. I think James answered that, the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God's purpose for this age is to call out a people for His name. And that's what God is doing today, He's calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don't have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they're going to be with us in heaven.

Schuller: What, what I hear you saying that it's possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and soul and life, even if they've been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying?

Graham: Yes, it is, because I believe that. I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they've believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they've tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived.

Schuller: I'm so thrilled to hear you say this. There's a wideness in God's mercy.

Graham: There is. There definitely is.

Here's the video of the interview.

Well know Calvinist John MacArthur really blew his top over that.

Well, what they are talking about sounds like the doctrine of Invincible Ignorance, which I support. Bear in mind Rev. Schuller was also a Calvinist, of the Dutch Reformed tradition (the Crystal Cathedral was part of the Reformed Church in America).

In the case of John MacArthur, the main area I agree with him on involves his views on Pentecostal and Charismatic worship, but for slightly different reasons, my views being best summarized by Fr. Seraphim Rose in his brilliant 1975 work Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future. Otherwise I generally disagree with him on most issues.

 

[ozso]

Well, what they are talking about sounds like the doctrine of Invincible Ignorance, which I support. Bear in mind Rev. Schuller was also a Calvinist, of the Dutch Reformed tradition (the Crystal Cathedral was part of the Reformed Church in America).

In the case of John MacArthur, the main area I agree with him on involves his views on Pentecostal and Charismatic worship, but for slightly different reasons, my views being best summarized by Fr. Seraphim Rose in his brilliant 1975 work Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future. Otherwise I generally disagree with him on most issues.

He condemns Catholicism as well based on his tirade over Hank Hanegraaff being crismated into the EO church. Basically called it an abomination to be accursed for its false teaching of works. The truly ironic part of this is I was already familiar with MacArthur's teaching of Lordship Salvation. Then I got into a lengthy discussion with a Catholic here on CF, and everything he said sounded exactly like Lordship Salvation. If it hadn't said Catholic in his profile I would have thought for sure he had read MacArthur's books. So MacArthur is basically condemning the "works doctrine" of Catholicism, while teaching it himself under another label.

 

[Quasiblogo]

My challenge with Calvin has to do with his behavior, e.g., how he treated Servetus. But to be fair: The Servetus Affair

I think Calvin debating Hobbes (the philosopher) would make a great one act play

 

[hedrick]

My challenge with Calvin has to do with his behavior, e.g., how he treated Servetus. But to be fair: The Servetus Affair

I think Calvin debating Hobbes (the philosopher) would make a great one act play

I agree completely, but remember (1) Calvin was actually out of power at the time, so it was more the town council (2) Geneva asked other towns and they all said they would execute him, (3) Catholics would have also.

That doesn't make it right. It wasn't. But we generally are willing to learn from people living in other times and cultures, even though we disapprove of some of their attitudes.

 

[Quasiblogo]

I agree completely, but remember (1) Calvin was actually out of power at the time, so it was more the town council (2) Geneva asked other towns and they all said they would execute him, (3) Catholics would have also.

That doesn't make it right. It wasn't. But we generally are willing to learn from people living in other times and cultures, even though we disapprove of some of their attitudes.

Good points, Hedrick.

 

[Fervent]

I’m actually sort of undecided on these issues. I’m still not sure open theism is wrong. But if we take a conventional view of God, I think predestination pretty much follows. God decided what kind of world to make, knowing what the result would be.

Calvinism has never claimed that God predestined the lost in the same sense as the saved. With the saved, he takes specific acts to save them. He doesn’t give some negative version of the Holy Spirit to the lost to corrupt them. Indeed he does the same kinds of things he does for the saved, but with the knowledge that it won’t be enough.

I think with an omnipotent God, who set up the universe and governs it, it’s hard to define a difference between ordaining something and just allowing it. He is responsible for everything that happens.

That does not mean that he said “I want X to be damned. Let’s make sure we set things up so he doesn’t have a chance.” It means that he chose a plan that would result in X being damned, despite the fact that he heard the Gospel, and God gave him the types of help he gives others.

Almost all Calvinists also accept compatibilism. That means that they think we can understand events on several levels. On one level, events happen because of responsible human choice. But looked at from God’s point of view, these things are all part of his plan, so he is responsible. Both explanations are true. This is a view that Calvin describes in the Institutes.

To me one of the major issues of objection to Calvinism isn't necessarily predestination, but a combination of unconditional election alongside predestination. If there is no condition within those whom God elects that causes them to be elected and others to be reprobate, then God is a capricious monster since the entirety of their damnation is built upon what amounts to a lottery. The other issue is that the "compatibilism" of Calvinism is a farce, as it forwards God as ultimately causing an individuals choice with the "free will" being a matter of how God's choices are experiened as if they originate in the individual's will.

You also seem to be neglecting views such as Molinism in your post by seeming to place the choices as either open theism or some brand of fatalism that doesn't distinguish between what God permits and what He intends.

To me it seems the Biblical condition is summed up in Proverbs 16:9. A man's heart plans his way, but the Lord determines his steps.

 

[rturner76]

Free will is something we believe in fervently. Every choice you make being pre-chosen for you is not biblical. Ask Adam and Eve. That's one thing that makes Calvinism undesirable. Too academic and not based in the teachings of the mother church like most other protestant religions.