I just now realized that I am a Calvinist!

[Skala]

a bunch of irrelevant stuff and bible verses that don't speak to the topic

No man can come to me unless the Father draws him - Jesus, John 6:44

That's the exact summary definition of total depravity.

Basically, the words Jesus himself spoke here drive the same point home as the very definition of Total Depravity you provided with your reply.

The point of Total depravity is that man cannot come to God on his own, he needs God's help to enable him to do so.

If you disagree with this notion, then you disagree with Jesus himself, not Calvinism.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

No man can come to me unless the Father draws him - Jesus, John 6:44

That's the exact summary definition of total depravity.

Basically, the words Jesus himself spoke here drive the same point home as the very definition of Total Depravity you provided with your reply.

The point of Total depravity is that man cannot come to God on his own, he needs God's help to enable him to do so.

If you disagree with this notion, then you disagree with Jesus himself, not Calvinism.

Even Pelagius taught that no man can come to Christ unless the Father draws him.

 

[Skala]

Even Pelagius taught that no man can come to Christ unless the Father draws him.

Obviously not, hence his controversy and the resulting backlash from things such as Augustine and the council of Orange.

Also, i hope you realize that by agreeing with Jesus you just dismantled your entire earlier argument. The jist of your post was that "man's will was left in tact after the fall" implying that no help from God was necessary in order to savingly believe.

If this wasn't your intention, what on earth were you making an argument for?

Man's will being "in tact" (whatever that means) is not something that is disputed. The dispute is over the question of what will man's will, in fact, actually choose while unregenerate?

Jesus answers:

Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God. John 8:47

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Obviously not, hence his controversy and the resulting backlash from things such as Augustine and the council of Orange.

Also, i hope you realize that by agreeing with Jesus you just dismantled your entire earlier argument. The jist of your post was that "man's will was left in tact after the fall" implying that no help from God was necessary in order to savingly believe.

If this wasn't your intention, what on earth were you making an argument for?

Man's will being "in tact" (whatever that means) is not something that is disputed. The dispute is over the question of what will man's will, in fact, actually choose while unregenerate?

Jesus answers:

Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God. John 8:47

Please familiarize yourself with the wittings of Calvin, Arminius, and Pelagius.

 

[Skala]

Please familiarize yourself with the wittings of Calvin, Arminius, and Pelagius.

Look at the definition of Total Depravity you provided (and then dismissed as in error) and compare it to what Jesus says in John 6:44.

You will see that they aim to drive home the same truth.

Also, I have no need to familiarize myself with the writings of anyone, the Bible will suffice.

Submit to the truth of John 6:44.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I have no need to familiarize myself with the writings of anyone, the Bible will suffice.

This thread is not about the Bible; it’s about the Five Points of Calvinism—five points that are not in the Bible!

 

[98cwitr]

^^^There's plenty of Scripture supporting the 5 points...and many of them have been posted. Your post of the Sirach verses hold no merit here...they are not canon, not even Jewish canon.

Very true. It is helpful to distinguish between the inner and outward calls!

"Whom he called, he justified.." Romans 8:29-30

If every single person he calls, he also justifies, that must mean this "calling" is a special, effectual type of calling. Otherwise it would say "Some of those he called, he justified".

I have pondered that verse for years, asking that very thing and glad you brought it up. It goes on to say those He justifies He also glorifies. Obviously God neither justifies nor glorifies all people, because all people are not saved.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

^^^There's plenty of Scripture supporting the 5 points...and many of them have been posted. Your post of the Sirach verses hold no merit here...they are not canon, not even Jewish canon.

If there were any Scriptures that support any of the Five Points of Calvinism, surely someone would have noticed at least one of them prior to the reformation—but there is no evidence that anyone did. Some people “find” them in the Bible now, but that is because they live in a culture extremely far removed from the cultures of the Bible, and they are influenced by their culture in which Calvinism is extremely pervasive. [/QUOTE]

The Book of Sirach is known among Christians as the “Book of Ecclesiasticus,” and is called the Liber Ecclesiasticus in ancient manuscripts. Liber Ecclesiasticus is Latin for “Church Book,” and it was so referred to because it was extensively used by the Church for the first several centuries. The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and most Oriental Orthodox churches consider it to be Canonical. However, the point that I made in my post was that it makes known to us the theological position of the Jewish people during the intertestamental period regarding “Free Will.” Jesus did not refute that teaching, but rather taught it Himself. God is not a thief—and He did not take away the free will of man when Adam sinned or at any other time. It is a doctrine of men that was introduced into the Church during the Protestant Reformation.

 

[98cwitr]

Good thing we aren't any of those denominations.

Proverbs 16:9 and 20:24...there's a concrete refute to free will, just for starters.

Ill give you just a quick rundown of Scripture supporting the 5 points

Total Depravity:

because of our fallen nature we are born again not by our own will but God’s will (John 1:12-13); God grants that we believe (Phil. 1:29); faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29); God appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48); and God predestines (Eph. 1:1-11; Rom. 8:29; 9:9-23).

Unconditional Election:

He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).

Limited Atonement:

John 10:11, 15; Matt. 25:32-33,

John 17:9 where Jesus in prayer interceded for the ones given Him, not those of the entire world

Acts 20:28 and Eph. 5:25-27 which state that the Church was purchased by Christ, not all people; and Isaiah 53:12 which is a prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion where he would bore the sins of many (not all).

Irresistible Grace:

teaching are Romans 9:16 where it says that "it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy"; Philippians 2:12-13 where God is said to be the one working salvation in the individual; John 6:28-29 where faith is declared to be the work of God; Acts 13:48 where God appoints people to believe; and John 1:12-13 where being born again is not by man’s will, but by God’s.
“All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out," (John 6:37).

Perseverance of the Saints:

John 10:27-28 where Jesus said His sheep will never perish; John 6:47 where salvation is described as everlasting life; Romans 8:1 where it is said we have passed out of judgment; 1 Corinthians 10:13 where God promises to never let us be tempted beyond what we can handle; and Phil. 1:6 where God is the one being faithful to perfect us until the day of Jesus’ return.

 

[ALoveDivine]

Thanks for the testimony. But to clarify, Calvinism does not teach that there is no free-will decision in salvation. One popular quote is "The will is not passed-by in salvation"

Yes, I should have worded that differently. What I was getting at was that it was not as if I just decided to be a Christian one day out of the blue. I was quite happy living in sin and wanted nothing to do with the things of God. I was in no way religious and was quite content alternating between atheism and agnosticism with a little feel-good pantheism thrown in the mix.

That is until God began working in my life, bringing powerful events and particular people into my life and rapidly bringing me under conviction, and soon my whole view of things began to change. So yes, at a certain point I did desire God, which is why I came to Christ. Yet were it not for God "drawing" me in the myriad ways in which he did at that time in my life, I would have never had that desire at all.

Another example of this "drawing". I had heard sermons many times as an unbeliever. I even used to go to this mega church as an atheist, specifically to meet girls my age and because they had games and such going on. I heard a sermon every time I went, and they weren't your "prosperity" sermons, they were mostly biblical. They did not affect me, I laughed at them. I was witnessed to, multiple times, and that did nothing, I laughed about those who witnessed to me and would make fun of them with my friends.

It wasn't until God began drawing me that I started to take the gospel seriously and started to think of God as real and started to think of myself as in need of salvation. So based on that personal experience of mine, its hard for me to take seriously the Arminian notion that anyone who hears the gospel can choose to be saved. I heard it many times and no little part of me wanted anything to do with it...until God in his sovereignty began moving in my life.

It takes an act of God to make a man see himself as a sinner justly condemned before an infinitely holy God, utterly without hope in himself, in need of salvation. Unregenerate people do not think of themselves in such a way, nor can they apart from sovereign grace.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Good thing we aren't any of those denominations.

Why?

Proverbs 16:9 and 20:24...there's a concrete refute to free will, just for starters.

Have you carefully and prayerfully read those verses? I have, and God showed me the same thing that he showed Franz Delitzsch about those verses:

Proverbs 16:9​

9 The heart of man deviseth his way;
But Jahve directeth his steps.

Similar to this is the German proverb: “Der Mensch denkt, Gott lenkt” [= our “man proposes, God disposes”], and the Arabic el-‛abd (הָעֶבֶד = man) judebbir wallah juḳaddir; Latin, homo proponit, Deus disponit; for, as Hitzig rightly remarks, 9b means, not that God maketh his steps firm (Venet., Luther, Umbreit, Bertheau, Elster), but that He gives direction to him (Jerome, dirigere). Man deliberates here and there (חִשֵּׁב, intens. of חָשַׁב, to calculate, reflect) how he will begin and carry on this or that; but his short-sightedness leaves much out of view which God sees; his calculation does not comprehend many contingencies which God disposes of and man cannot foresee. The result and issue are thus of God, and the best is, that in all his deliberations one should give himself up without self-confidence and arrogance to the guidance of God, that one should do his duty and leave the rest, with humility and confidence, to God.

Proverbs 20:24​

24 The steps of a man depend on Jahve;
And a man - how can he understand his way?

Line first is from Psa_37:23, but there, where the clause has the verbal predicate כּוֹנָנוּ, the meaning is that it is the gracious assistance of God, by virtue of which a man takes certain steps with his feet, while here we have before us a variation of the proverb “der Mensch denkt, Gott lenkt” = man proposes, God disposes, Pro_16:9, Jer_10:23; for מִן, as at 2Sa_3:37; Psa_118:23, denotes God in general as conditioning, as the ultimate cause. Man is indeed free to turn himself hither or thither, to decide on this course of conduct or on that, and is therefore responsible for it; but the relations co-operating in all his steps as the possible and defining conditions are God's contrivance and guidance, and the consequences which are connected with his steps and flow therefrom, lie beyond the power of man - every one of his steps is a link of a chain, neither the beginning nor the end of which he can see; while, on the other hand, God's knowledge comprehends the beginning, middle, and end, and the wisdom of God ruling in the sphere of history, makes all human activity, the free action of man, subservient to his world-plan. The question, which has a negative answer, is applicable to man: what, i.e., how shall he understand his way? מה is like, e.g., Exo_10:26; Job_9:2; Job_19:28, accus., and fluctuates between the functions of a governed accusative: What does he understand... (Job_11:8) and an adv.: how, i.e., how so little, how even not, for it is the מה of the negative question which has become in (Arab.) mâ a word of negation. The way of a man is his life's-course. This he understands in the present life only relatively, the true unravelling of it remains for the future.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Ill give you just a quick rundown of Scripture supporting the 5 points

Total Depravity:

because of our fallen nature we are born again not by our own will but God’s will (John 1:12-13); God grants that we believe (Phil. 1:29); faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29); God appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48); and God predestines (Eph. 1:1-11; Rom. 8:29; 9:9-23).

Have you read these verses? None of them make any mention at all of anyone’s fallen nature.

Unconditional Election:

He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).

Have you read these verses? Let us look at the first one of them. Ephesians 1:4-8 are less than half of the sentence in which they are found. The sentence reads, translated from the Greek,

3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ:
4. even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:
5. having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6. to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved:
7. in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trepasses, according to the riches of his grace,
8. which he made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence,
9. making known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he purposed in him
10. unto a dispensation of the fulness of the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth; in him, I say,
11. in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will;
12. to the end that we should be unto the praise of his glory, we who had before hoped in Christ:
13. in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation,-- in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
14. which is an earnest of our inheritance, unto the redemption of God's own possession, unto the praise of his glory. (ASV)

Yes, in the Greek New Testament, this is one sentence with one main clause (an independent clause) and very many subordinate clauses. The main clause is “Blessed be the God and Father.” Therefore, we know for an incontrovertible fact that this very long sentence is a doxology—a type of eulogy. Have you ever been to a funeral in which the deceased was eulogized? Eulogies give us only one side of the picture! This particular eulogy tells us only what God has done; it does NOT tell us man’s part in what God has done. For that, we need to read the rest of the book!

Limited Atonement:

John 10:11, 15; Matt. 25:32-33,

John 17:9 where Jesus in prayer interceded for the ones given Him, not those of the entire world

Acts 20:28 and Eph. 5:25-27 which state that the Church was purchased by Christ, not all people; and Isaiah 53:12 which is a prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion where he would bore the sins of many (not all).

Staying in Ephesians for a moment,

Eph. 5:25. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it;
26. that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word,
27. that he might present the church to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Yes, Christ gave Himself up for the Church just as much as He gave Himself up for the entire world.

As for the rest of your verses, I need to ask you a question—if your verses really teach what you believe them to teach, why did not anyone notice that until the Reformation? If your verses really teach what you believe them to teach, why is it that the very large majority of New Testament scholars today interpret your verses VERY differently than you do?

 

[98cwitr]

Do you not agree with Total Depravity either?

I dont get your point in harping on "Eulogizing" but verse 4-5 are hard evidence of predestination, and predestination supports explicitly unconditional election. Technically, the only condition is faith, and that is God-given and not self manifested (Acts 13:48).

I dont find the word "world" in Eph. 5:27...are you projecting it? And dont bring up John 3:16 unless you're gonna include verses 17-20 along with it.

Great question, why don't they see it? Because they choose to ignore them so they can hang onto their falsehood of "free will." Anything that would contradict their autonomy would surely have to be false. It's ego getting in the way of the Word. Simple as that.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Great question, why don't they see it? Because they choose to ignore them so they can hang onto their falsehood of "free will." Anything that would contradict their autonomy would surely have to be false. It's ego getting in the way of the Word. Simple as that.

Does your answer fairly represent your spiritual condition and your attitude toward people who believe differently than you do?

Since my very early years as a Christian, I have honestly and sincerely prayed everyday to my Father in heaven for Him to teach me His truths and protect me from error. I daily study the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, constantly consulting men who have made the study of individual parts of the Bible their life’s work, and I do this regardless or their denominational preference. I have in my home library hundreds of volumes of commentaries and other studies on the writings of Paul (over 280 of them on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans). During the first year of my first pastorate, I skipped many meals so that I could purchase books in order study the word of God. During that time, I purchased systematic theologies by Calvinists, Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, and others, all for one purpose—to understand more accurately the word of God as I walked in the footsteps of countless thousands of men better than I.

 

[98cwitr]

Very cool. I do notice a trend though, especially in those folks that do attend seminary and are well studied in many religions and denominations, where more study is poured into other people's interpretations of scripture than scripture itself. Why is that exactly? if the Holy Spirit is leading you, what more do you need than the Bible?

 

[Stephen Kendall]

I just now realized that I am a Calvinist. Tom Cuckoo is a one-point Calvinist. Dick Chimey is a three-point Calvinist. Harry Tick Talk is a five-point Calvinist. And I am a zero-point Calvinist!

Are you a Tom, Dick, or Harry Calvinist, or one of a different kind—perhaps one like me?

I read a lot of our Christian History, especially about John Calvin. The system made him look bad, yet I hold him to part of the guilt of killing heretics. I am not impressed with theologians. Christians are to live by their faith by following & obeying Jesus alone with the help of the Holy Spirit which is sufficient for us, bad histories and those who share in its blames & guilts should not be part of our faith.

 

[Skala]

If there were any Scriptures that support any of the Five Points of Calvinism, surely someone would have noticed at least one of them prior to the reformation—but there is no evidence that anyone did.

The Council of Orange 529 AD (you know, about 1000 years prior to the reformation) firmly taught monergism (the core issue of Calvinism) and predestination.

Also, princetonguy, your argument reveals that you are not very knowledgeable about church history, or worse, you are not thinking about your argument very much, because it's not Calvinists or the Reformer's fault that their theology is known as "the 5 points of Calvinism", but rather, its the Arminian's of the Remonstrance's fault.

Nobody ever sat down and said "Let's describe our theology in 5 points". Instead, the Arminians disagreed with 5 things, and brought their disagreement to the Synod of Dordt.

The Calvinists responded to each of their disagreements one point at a time.

5 disagreements the Arminians had with the dutch reformed church
5 responses from the Synod of dordt

These 5 respondses from the Synod are what came to be known as the 5 points of Calvinism.

But you should keep in mind that the only reason this doctrine is in 5 distinct points is because that is how many issues the Arminians raised, not because the Calvinists described their theology as "The 5 points" or anything like that.

In other words, the 5 points of Calvinism were not originally a positive affirmation of doctrine, but rather, a negative response to the 5 points of Arminianism that the Arminians brought forth to the Synod.

Simply knowing the history behind things will demonstrate that your objection that "Nobody in church history knew about the 5 points of Calvinism prior to the reformation" is a false dilemma.

Your argument is akin to saying "Nobody knew about the doctrine of "The Trinity" before the word "Trinity" was coined. Obviously, the doctrine itself existed in the pages of scripture before someone came along and invented a nice, neat little packaged word to describe it.

The same is true of the 5 points.

 

[Skala]

I read a lot of our Christian History, especially about John Calvin. The system made him look bad, yet I hold him to part of the guilt of killing heretics. I am not impressed with theologians. Christians are to live by their faith by following & obeying Jesus alone with the help of the Holy Spirit which is sufficient for us, bad histories and those who share in its blames & guilts should not be part of our faith.

Your argument is terrible Stephen.

If you dismissed the teaching of anyone with sin in their life, what you describe as "bad histories and guilts" then we'd have to dismiss every single bible teacher in all of history, as every man is a sinner, for example, the Apostle Paul, the chief himself. A mass murderer and persecutor of the church.

As an FYI, regarding Calvin and and the death of certain heretics such as Servetus, everyone should know that Calvin merely served as a witness in Servetus' trial. He was not judge, jury, or executioner. Servetus was already on the run from another country with a death sentence on his head. He was captured and held trial. Calvin's job was to simply serve as a witness in the trial to prove if the allegations against Servetus were true. Servetus was put on trial by Genevas Little Council of Twenty Five. It should be known that this Council was not friends of Calvin, but his enemies.

Servetus, also being enemies of Calvin, was arrogant and confident in the trial, since he figured the Council would side with him against Calvin. His arrogance led him to not give a substantial defense for himself, instead opting to lob insults at Calvin. However, Calvin's calm, cool reasoning and expert logic caused the Council to find Servetus guilty. Servetus was shocked and couldn't believe it. (Let it be known that four other cities also recommended a verdict of guilty)

Some other things you should know:

Calvin pleaded with the Council to issue a beheading rather than a burning at the stake, but his pleas were denied.

Servetus, too, believed heresy justified the death sentence. Death for heretics is not something Calvin invented but was part of the culture at the time.

Calvin had no political power, being a foreigner himself.

Calvin didn't want Servetus to die, but to recant of his errors. He spent time with him during and after the trial, trying to convince him to recant.

It wasn't Calvin's decision to burn Servetus at the stake, but Geneva's Council of Twenty Five.

The belief that denial of the Trinity justifies a death sentence is not something Calvin invented, but was rather simply a medieval inheritance that everyone believed, including Servetus.

We constantly see people using the Calvin and Servetus historical event as a blot against Calvin's reputation, which you can see isn't exactly a blot against him at all. Usually, synergists are just repeating what they heard other anti-Calvinists say. They aren't quoting things they learned by actually taking the time to sit down and study the issue themselves. They aren't concerned with accuracy or historical fact. As long as they can make Calvin look as bad as possible, they feel justified in dismissing him and the theology that bears his name. By bringing up this historical event, they think they gain a foothold against Calvinism itself. Ironically, Calvinism has nothing to do with John Calvin, as it comes from the pages of the Bible, and not what Calvin taught.

Thus one can rightly conclude that this ad hominem attack against Calvin is a sure sign of desperation by anti-Calvinists.

To see more information, go here:

http://salvationbygrace.org/uc/sub/qaprint.aspx?qa=113&local=11a

 

[98cwitr]

The Council of Orange 529 AD (you know, about 1000 years prior to the reformation) firmly taught monergism (the core issue of Calvinism) and predestination.

well I just learned something

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The Council of Orange 529 AD (you know, about 1000 years prior to the reformation) firmly taught monergism (the core issue of Calvinism) and predestination.

The Council of Orange that took place in 529 AD did NOT teach monergism (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Councils of Orange).

Also, princetonguy, your argument reveals that you are not very knowledgeable about church history, or worse, you are not thinking about your argument very much, because it's not Calvinists or the Reformer's fault that their theology is known as "the 5 points of Calvinism", but rather, its the Arminian's of the Remonstrance's fault.

Nobody ever sat down and said "Let's describe our theology in 5 points". Instead, the Arminians disagreed with 5 things, and brought their disagreement to the Synod of Dordt.

The Calvinists responded to each of their disagreements one point at a time.

5 disagreements the Arminians had with the dutch reformed church
5 responses from the Synod of dordt

These 5 respondses from the Synod are what came to be known as the 5 points of Calvinism.

But you should keep in mind that the only reason this doctrine is in 5 distinct points is because that is how many issues the Arminians raised, not because the Calvinists described their theology as "The 5 points" or anything like that.

In other words, the 5 points of Calvinism were not originally a positive affirmation of doctrine, but rather, a negative response to the 5 points of Arminianism that the Arminians brought forth to the Synod.

The true history is that Calvinism introduced into the Dutch Reformed Church new teaching that expressing contradicted the teaching of Christ and His apostles. Many Christians were appalled by these false teachings and vigorously taught against them. Indeed, their objections to the teaching of Calvin and Beza were published in The Remonstrance of 1610, and the objectors became known as “Remonstrants.” The Calvinists were not able to effectively argue against the Remonstrants, so the Calvinists began a smear campaign in which they accused the Remonstrants of treason and disloyalty toward the Dutch in favor of the Spanish. The Synod of Dordrecht was convened to settle the theological dispute. The Remonstrants were defeated by the Calvinists.

Simply knowing the history behind things will demonstrate that your objection that "Nobody in church history knew about the 5 points of Calvinism prior to the reformation" is a false dilemma.

Please do not dishonestly quote me, and please do not post things that are not true. Although very extensive searches have been carried out by Calvinists searching for their five points in pre-reformation literature, they have found none. Some Calvinists, however, most notably John Gill, have published works in which they quoted from the Early Church Fathers, but when the quotes were checked against the original writings, they were found to have been deliberately taken out of context to radically misrepresent what was actually written. Today, however, the writing of the Early Church Fathers can be read online, so deliberately misquoting them does not work very well for Calvinists.

Your argument is akin to saying "Nobody knew about the doctrine of "The Trinity" before the word "Trinity" was coined. Obviously, the doctrine itself existed in the pages of scripture before someone came along and invented a nice, neat little packaged word to describe it.

The same is true of the 5 points.

The doctrine of the Trinity, regardless of what one may choose to call it, is taught in the Bible. The Five Points of Calvinism, regardless of what one may choose to call them, are NOT taught in the Bible and are not found in any literature prior to the reformation.