Misconceptions about Calvinism

[MoreCoffee]

The concepts on the civil magistrate and religious worship and the sabbath day are not unique to Reformed theology are they? Neither do these define the major differences between what Calvinism is and is not do they?

If I cannot rely on the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Confession of Faith for the system of doctrine that is called Calvinism then where ought I to look? If the above documents are a reliable place to look for a coherent concept of Calvinism why are you complaining when I ask about specifics contained in one of them? Ought I to look only at "the distinctives" if I want to form an accurate concept of Calvinism? If such is the case where ought I to be looking for these distinctives?

Should I have included the Thirty Nine Articles too, and the London Baptist Confession?

Maybe I should have narrowed "Calvinism" down to The Canons of the Council of Orange and The Canons of Dordt for people with rabbit trail tendencies.

Will the documents you mentioned give me an accurate concept of Calvinism or are you attempting to send me down a rabbit trail where only a few distinctive doctrines are discussed and when I raise questions about the content of those documents will I be told that I have an incomplete concept of Calvinism because only a small subset of the system of doctrine that is Calvinism has been covered?

I thought this was about common misconceptions about "Calvinism" in the modern sense of the word, not civil magistrate and religious worship and the sabbath day, none of which define modern "Calvinism", though Reformed Christianity has always had positions on, ever striving to be faithful to God and the Scriptures.

The thread is about common misconceptions and I want to avoid them. You offered a suggestion that I read the Three Forms of Unity and then the Westminster Confession of Faith as a starting point in forming a correct concept of Calvinism. I have read the four documents you mentioned. I've asked about two specific areas in the WCF and now you appear to be objecting to the questions I've asked. Why?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

If I cannot rely on the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Confession of Faith for the system of doctrine that is called Calvinism then where ought I to look?

Umm...you can. I would say you ought to look in Scripture (it is the main, primary, and most authoritative source), but that's obvious and...cliche...? And further doesn't every "system of doctrine" make the same claim to Scripture as the source? I can already hear "who's interpretation can we trust"? God the Holy Spirit silly, or does He only guide the leet?

If the above documents are a reliable place to look for a coherent concept of Calvinism why are you complaining when I ask about specifics contained in one of them?

For one, because you asked the questions to me in a personal manner, and you are digging into matters where there is room for, and is disagreements, and differences in interpretation, etc. Further, the sections you quoted, also just so happen to involve revisions of the WCF, to which you would further take the divisive route of which version do we refer to. I wasn't born yesterday.

Ought I to look only at "the distinctives" if I want to form an accurate concept of Calvinism? If such is the case where ought I to be looking for these distinctives?

Yes, you ought only look at the distinctives, the pillars of the Reformed faith to form an accurate concept of "Calvinism". Strange, I thought I answered the question already?!?

Will the documents you mentioned give me an accurate concept of Calvinism or are you attempting to send me down a rabbit trail where only a few distinctive doctrines are discussed and when I raise questions about the content of those documents will I be told that I have an incomplete concept of Calvinism because only a small subset of the system of doctrine that is Calvinism has been covered?

Yes I am attempting to send you down a rabbit trail, beware! Why do I sense an argumentative spirit? Are you arguing with me to try and derail the whole thread? I do not post in this sub forum to get into arguments, especially with a Roman Catholic. If you seriously are looking for answers, then stop arguing and do some reading, from books that explain "Calvinism". It's not as though they do not exist, it's not as though the question has not been addressed hundreds of times in this forum.

The thread is about common misconceptions and I want to avoid them. You offered a suggestion that I read the Three Forms of Unity and then the Westminster Confession of Faith as a starting point in forming a correct concept of Calvinism. I have read the four documents you mentioned. I've asked about two specific areas in the WCF and now you appear to be objecting to the questions I've asked. Why?

I have explained why in this response, and yes I offered them as a starting point, not the ending point, or THE ultimate point or authority, but as accurate and reliable expressions of Reformed Christianity they are, and within them a coherent concept of Calvinism, which today is mostly characterized in soteriological terms.

Now allow me to quickly show you something as an example. It is often thought that Calvinist deny "free will" but in the Westminster Confession of Faith we read:

CHAPTER 9
Of Free Will

1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good, or evil.

2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.

3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.

5. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only."

No honest person can after reading that, stand there and say that Calvinists deny "free will". The WCF is THE major, and has been an authoritative doctrinal standard of Presbyterians which historically in different branches represents the majority of "Calvinists".

Finally, if reading the confessions did not help you, and your search is sincere, then I suggest a book such as: The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented which has been suggested previously in these forums.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Umm...you can. I would say you ought to look in Scripture (it is the main, primary, and most authoritative source), but that's obvious and...cliche...?

Yes it is clichéd to refer me to holy scripture because we all look to holy scripture for revelation from God and we all treat it as normative to some degree or other.

And further doesn't every "system of doctrine" make the same claim to Scripture as the source?

Yes and no, not all claims rest on holy scripture as their source but nearly everybody does claim holy scripture as at least not contradicting their claims.

I can already hear "who's interpretation can we trust"? God the Holy Spirit silly, or does He only guide the leet?

You might very well think so; I could not possibly comment.

For one, because you asked the questions to me in a personal manner, and you are digging into matters where there is room for, and is disagreements, and differences in interpretation, etc. Further, the sections you quoted, also just so happen to involve revisions of the WCF, to which you would further take the divisive route of which version do we refer to. I wasn't born yesterday.

Perhaps you could point me to the appropriate chapter and section numbers in the WCF. It is the document with which I am most familiar out of the four you mentioned. If there are distinctive doctrines that characterise Calvinism then would I be right in thinking that they are present in the WCF?

Yes, you ought only look at the distinctives, the pillars of the Reformed faith to form an accurate concept of "Calvinism". Strange, I thought I answered the question already?!?

I wanted to be sure that you thought that the distinctives alone would be sufficient for the forming of an accurate concept of Calvinism. You appear to be confident that they are sufficient. And you appear to be sure that restricting my enquiry to the distinctive doctrines that are presented in the Canons of Dordrecht will do the job if I supplement them with the canons of the council of Orange (do you mean all 25 of them?).

Yes I am attempting to send you down a rabbit trail, beware! Why do I sense an argumentative spirit?

Oh, that would be because your replies say that you question my motives; is that not a sign of an argumentative approach on your part?

Are you arguing with me to try and derail the whole thread?

It is not I who argued, I asked questions about two chapters in the WCF. I made no reply to impugn your motives. Even when I asked about rabbit trails I was only reflecting something you wrote in your reply about rabbit trails. In any case it is clear from my first post that my intent is to gain a correct concept of Calvinism so I can avoid the misconceptions about which this thread asked.

I do not post in this sub forum to get into arguments, especially with a Roman Catholic.

Haven't all my responses to you been temperate?

If you seriously are looking for answers, then stop arguing and do some reading, from books that explain "Calvinism".

I have read a number of books about Calvinism. I wanted to be sure that they gave an accurate representation. The books I've read are from the Presbyterian branch of Calvinism and some from the Netherlands reformed traditions. If you want I can give you the details of the books.

It's not as though they do not exist, it's not as though the question has not been addressed hundreds of times in this forum.

I have not read all the threads on this forum. Is it bad form to ask questions?

I have explained why in this response, and yes I offered them as a starting point, not the ending point, or THE ultimate point or authority, but as accurate and reliable expressions of Reformed Christianity they are, and within them a coherent concept of Calvinism, which today is mostly characterized in soteriological terms.

Now allow me to quickly show you something as an example. It is often thought that Calvinist deny "free will" but in the Westminster Confession of Faith we read:

CHAPTER 9
Of Free Will

1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good, or evil.

2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.

3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.

5. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only."

No honest person can after reading that, stand there and say that Calvinists deny "free will". The WCF is THE major, and has been an authoritative doctrinal standard of Presbyterians which historically in different branches represents the majority of "Calvinists".

Finally, if reading the confessions did not help you, and your search is sincere, then I suggest a book such as: The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented which has been suggested previously in these forums.

I may return to the rest of your post if you want me to, I do not want to make my response too long in this post. Besides, I hoped that a more temperate discussion could ensue after this reply.

 

[moonbeam]

Is it bad form to ask questions?

Certainly not.

And I hope you do not think so yourself… hence the following question for you.

What are the primary points of the original WCF which you are, personally, at variance with?

.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Certainly not.

And I hope you do not think so yourself… hence the following question for you.

What are the primary points of the original WCF which you are, personally, at variance with?

I don't know really. It's been a while since I read it in full but I can mention a couple from the first chapter.

• The first chapter contains some elements with which I am in disagreement. The elements I have in mind are the list of sixty six books and the comment about the apocrypha (by which seven canonical books are meant as well as any number of other books which are not canonical).
• I also think that section nine of chapter one is not quite right.

 

[moonbeam]

I don't know really.

Well than...its highly unlikely you will be able to gain much from a discussion until you are able to identify your own, personal, primary points of variance, with the original WCF.

I would suggest, politely, that you take the time to familiarize yourself with the document concerned again…also, and as an additional aid, in helping you to understand the Calvinist/Reformed position, concerning the original WCF…I highly recommend the recorded edition (by the author) of Gordon H Clark, as he recites from his book "What do Presbyterians believe" which can be found on the website The Trinity Foundation.

You will have no doubt, then, what you are able to agree with, and disagree with.

Those matters of distinction…will be…the distinctives of Calvinism, which you wish, to be identified.

.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well then...its highly unlikely you will be able to gain much from a discussion until you are able to identify your own, personal, primary points of variance, with the original WCF.

I would suggest, politely, that you take the time to familiarize yourself with the document concerned again…also, and as an additional aid, in helping you to understand the Calvinist/Reformed position, concerning the original WCF…I highly recommend the recorded edition (by the author) of Gordon H Clark, as he recites from his book "What do Presbyterians believe" which can be found on the website The Trinity Foundation.

You will have no doubt, then, what you are able to agree with, and disagree with.

Those matters of distinction…will be…the distinctives of Calvinism, which you wish, to be identified.

.

I have the printed edition of What do Presbyterians Believe from Presbyterians & Reformed publishers. It's bound in green paper/card. I've read it.

I did raise two points of disagreement in my previous post. I presume from your reply that they are not among the distinctive doctrines of Calvinism.

 

[moonbeam]

I did raise two points of disagreement in my previous post. I presume from your reply that they are not among the distinctive doctrines of Calvinism.

I think you may have misunderstood me… If you find, that you, are in disagreement with those two particular points, which you have raised… than certainly, those two points of disagreement, are distinctives of Calvinism (in that that variance is unacceptable to you).

That you are in disagreement with them…is acceptable to me…and to you I would imagine.

My previous suggestion, for further, personal, study on your part…may reveal other points of variance to you…and perhaps, some points of agreement.

Would that not be a worthwhile endeavour for you to engage in?

After all…you did say…"I don't know really"

Just trying to be helpful.

.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think you may have misunderstood me… If you find, that you, are in disagreement with those two particular points, which you have raised… then certainly, those two points of disagreement, are distinctives of Calvinism (in that the variance is unacceptable to you).

That you are in disagreement with them…is acceptable to me…and to you I would imagine.

My previous suggestion, for further, personal, study on your part…may reveal other points of variance to you…and perhaps, some points of agreement.

Would that not be a worthwhile endeavour for you to engage in?

After all…you did say…"I don't know really"

Just trying to be helpful.

I enjoyed Dr Clark's book when last I read it so I would be pleased to read it again or to listen to it.

The two points I raised are in the first chapter. I will check the second chapter and so forth if it is likely that asking questions about it is okay.

 

[moonbeam]

I enjoyed Dr Clark's book when last I read it so I would be pleased to read it again or to listen to it.

The two points I raised are in the first chapter. I will check the second chapter and so forth if it is likely that asking questions about it is okay.

Personally, I strongly recommend that you avail yourself of the recording…as the inflection and tone of the voice of Gordan H Clark (the original author) will certainly help to understand his emphasis, where it needs to be made, and so, both your enquiries, and the time dedicated to them…will be rewarded most effectively.

.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I am playing the mp3 from The Trinity Foundation at the moment. It appears that the reader is Al Stone rather then Gordon Haddon Clark.

 

[moonbeam]

I am playing the mp3 from The Trinity Foundation at the moment. It appears that the reader is Al Stone rather then Gordon Haddon Clark.

Yes…you are correct..I just checked myself.

The venerable professors voice is heard in the other lectures on that sight.

Still…Al Stone does an admirable job reciting Clark's book.

My apologies for my error.

There is a lot of excellent material contained in those lectures, by both Clark and John Robbins…You will benefit greatly by availing yourself of this resource.

Hope you enjoy what you find there.

What I like most about Clark's and Robbin's thought…is their fastidious adherence to scriptural accuracy and truth.

My dear friend…God's providential hand is guiding you into the TRUTH…here.

Let it be so.


.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes…you are correct..I just checked myself.

The venerable professors voice is heard in the other lectures on that sight.

Still…Al Stone does an admirable job reciting Clark's book.

My apologies for my error.

There is a lot of excellent material contained in those lectures, by both Clark and John Robbins…You will benefit greatly by availing yourself of this resource.

Hope you enjoy what you find there.

What I like most about Clark's and Robbin's thought…is their fastidious adherence to scriptural accuracy and truth.

My dear friend…God's providential hand is guiding you into the TRUTH…here.

Let it be so.

I do not wish to disappoint your hope or to say anything that would offend you but my purpose in asking about an accurate concept of Calvinism is to acquire information rather than to find a new religion for myself.

I am a Catholic because I am persuaded that the teaching of Christ is the teaching of the Catholic Church. I do not doubt that you may hold a similar view of the doctrines of grace expressed in the WCF or if not in the Westminster standards then perhaps in the standards of your own denomination.

The reason why I am familiar with Clark's book is because I have read it and several of his commentaries as well as Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion and several theologies written by men of the reformed traditions.

So I am gathering information and wanting to discuss matters related to the sources that define Calvinism as far as such sources are available.

 

[moonbeam]

I do not wish to disappoint your hope or to say anything that would offend you but my purpose in asking about an accurate concept of Calvinism is to acquire information rather than to find a new religion for myself.

I am a Catholic because I am persuaded that the teaching of Christ is the teaching of the Catholic Church. I do not doubt that you may hold a similar view of the doctrines of grace expressed in the WCF or if not in the Westminster standards then perhaps in the standards of your own denomination.

The reason why I am familiar with Clark's book is because I have read it and several of his commentaries as well as Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion and several theologies written by men of the reformed traditions.

So I am gathering information and wanting to discuss matters related to the sources that define Calvinism as far as such sources are available.

Fair enough…yet even a huge ship…can be moved in a new direction…by a small rudder (providential circumstance)

.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Fair enough…yet even a huge ship…can be moved in a new direction…by a small rudder (providential circumstance)

Sometimes I too entertain the hope that others will come to a knowledge of the truth in all of its fullness and thus become Catholic.