questions :)

[meh]

Hi I was wondering if I could get a Calvinist to take some time and answer some questions I have. I've read lots on the subject of Calvinism, but I have to admit a lot of it goes right over my head.

I just have a bunch of questions and it'd be great if someone could answer them in language I'll be able to get

 

[mlqurgw]

I am sure you could find many here who would be grateful for an opportunity to answer your questions in kindness and in love. While I do not call myself a Calvinist, I am not reformed but do hold to tulip, I will do the best I am able. Go ahead nad ask.

 

[meh]

That's so great! Thanks so much. It's just that I think I'm probably Calvinist or hold to TULIP at least. But it'd be nice if I knew for sure I *know* what I'm talking about

I'll start with T and U from TULIP:


Total Depravity is the condition that we are all born unregenerate and in our natural state no one could, would or can seek God. It is only by God extending His grace to us that any can seek Him or understand spiritual things. We are born by His will, we believe because He grants us the desire to believe and those who do hear and believe are called elect. Because God has chosen or predestined that we will be chosen. Because we don’t actually choose God unless He has chosen us first. People who don’t hear Him were not chosen to hear and they can’t. So sometimes arguing or trying to evangelize won’t work because some people just are incapable of ever believing. God's grace is not extended to them thus they will never seek him honestly or hear his voice.



Unconditional Election is God chooses us simply because He does. It doesn’t have to do with anything He sees in us or knows we might do later. He doesn’t look into the future to see who would choose Him. He simply chooses because He’s god and does what He wants by His will.

So then would that mean that if some are chosen to believe others just are not. That is where I have a stumbling block because it’s hard for me to get that He would allow people to be born and not choose them so they have no hope of salvation. I’m not saying I don’t think it’s true, I just have trouble understanding that. Except if it would mean that since we know not all people are going to accept Christ, if some don’t then the Cross didn’t work or is unfinished. But we know that it is finished. So he must’ve died for the elect only.

I'll stop for now before I totally confuse myself.

 

[frumanchu]

That's so great! Thanks so much. It's just that I think I'm probably Calvinist or hold to TULIP at least. But it'd be nice if I knew for sure I *know* what I'm talking about

I'll start with T and U from TULIP:


Total Depravity is the condition that we are all born unregenerate and in our natural state no one could, would or can seek God. It is only by God extending His grace to us that any can seek Him or understand spiritual things. We are born by His will, we believe because He grants us the desire to believe and those who do hear and believe are called elect. Because God has chosen or predestined that we will be chosen. Because we don’t actually choose God unless He has chosen us first. People who don’t hear Him were not chosen to hear and they can’t. So sometimes arguing or trying to evangelize won’t work because some people just are incapable of ever believing. God's grace is not extended to them thus they will never seek him honestly or hear his voice.



Unconditional Election is God chooses us simply because He does. It doesn’t have to do with anything He sees in us or knows we might do later. He doesn’t look into the future to see who would choose Him. He simply chooses because He’s god and does what He wants by His will.

So then would that mean that if some are chosen to believe others just are not. That is where I have a stumbling block because it’s hard for me to get that He would allow people to be born and not choose them so they have no hope of salvation. I’m not saying I don’t think it’s true, I just have trouble understanding that. Except if it would mean that since we know not all people are going to accept Christ, if some don’t then the Cross didn’t work or is unfinished. But we know that it is finished. So he must’ve died for the elect only.

I'll stop for now before I totally confuse myself.

You're largely on the right track, friend.

What is important to keep in mind, particularly with respect to evangelism, is that we do not know all those whom God has elected. All men are born under the same condition in their depravity, and both elect and non-elect will refuse the Gospel and reject their Creator. The Gospel is the instrumental means by which He brings the elect to faith in Christ. Apart from the prior work of the Holy Spirit, even the elect will fail to ever put their trust in the Gospel message (even if they accept it at an intellectual level). However, in regenerating us the Holy Spirit breathes life into our "dead" hearts, inspiring within our hearts a desire for Him that is not only sufficient to overcome the evil desires of his sinful nature but is wholly efficient in bringing about the response of true saving faith to the Gospel message.

So, when it comes to preaching the Gospel message, we preach to all men trusting in God's promise that His Word will not return unto Him void and that God will use the message as He pleases to bring about the salvation of those whom He has regenerated.

 

[heymikey80]

That's so great! Thanks so much. It's just that I think I'm probably Calvinist or hold to TULIP at least. But it'd be nice if I knew for sure I *know* what I'm talking about

I'll start with T and U from TULIP:


Total Depravity is the condition that we are all born unregenerate and in our natural state no one could, would or can seek God. It is only by God extending His grace to us that any can seek Him or understand spiritual things. We are born by His will, we believe because He grants us the desire to believe and those who do hear and believe are called elect. Because God has chosen or predestined that we will be chosen. Because we don’t actually choose God unless He has chosen us first. People who don’t hear Him were not chosen to hear and they can’t. So sometimes arguing or trying to evangelize won’t work because some people just are incapable of ever believing. God's grace is not extended to them thus they will never seek him honestly or hear his voice.



Unconditional Election is God chooses us simply because He does. It doesn’t have to do with anything He sees in us or knows we might do later. He doesn’t look into the future to see who would choose Him. He simply chooses because He’s god and does what He wants by His will.

So then would that mean that if some are chosen to believe others just are not. That is where I have a stumbling block because it’s hard for me to get that He would allow people to be born and not choose them so they have no hope of salvation. I’m not saying I don’t think it’s true, I just have trouble understanding that. Except if it would mean that since we know not all people are going to accept Christ, if some don’t then the Cross didn’t work or is unfinished. But we know that it is finished. So he must’ve died for the elect only.

I'll stop for now before I totally confuse myself.

If you had "Unlimited Atonement", you'd have universalism -- everyone would be saved. So I think what you're asking about is the doctrine of "Limited Atonement" -- that Christ died to save those God chose.

Everyone who's not a universalist holds to some view that the Atonement is limited. But you can see what a problem it is if God pumps up some decision on the part of the person. Then God is saying, "I value that decision of the person." It becomes a work-for-wages system. He's getting eternal life in exchange for that decision.

I thought it'd be interesting if the character of Michael Corleone (the Godfather) were in a skit confronting God about this: "Well I decided for you, whassamatta?" Of course the matter is that the decision wasn't deep. Hey, a gangster may very well find spirituality nice, may find a way to consider his behavior as redemptive, and so forth. But there's a deeper question than just the gangster's perception of reality.

In reality we're all gangsters. Total Inability constantly has us confronting God, "Whassamatta?" And it is only through God's mercy and forbearance that we aren't wiped clean off His Creation.

The Atonement must truly go so deep into our souls, that we can't fathom the depth required for it. We have to maintain this fact in order to come up with a plausible theology. This depth is largely what leads us to wonder about the limits God puts on His favor. Our shallowness leads us to ask why the Atonement doesn't deluge everyone in the breadth of God's love. But it seems God has His reasons for not picking everyone (cf. Rom 9:19ff for Paul's answer to this question).

If we step outside God's viewpoint and look at this from our own human level of understanding, then it's much the same as the free-will view. The Gospel is presented to everyone; everyone decides whether it's to be trusted, and those who trust in it are saved by it. People are permitted to decide -- but with a warning, there will come a time when they can no longer reject God and will undergo punishment.

The difference in Calvinism is in the way this humanly-same system looks to God. For while people hear the voice of the call to the Gospel, there is also the voice of God bringing spiritual life to people through His direct command. We're dead (Ep 2:1), if the external call were the only thing there, then nobody would humanly rise from the dead to answer it.

And if God brought spiritual life to everyone, everyone would answer it.

Since neither is the case, God must bring spiritual life only to some people -- and not on the basis of some shallow thing that we humans might do to grab His attention. He chooses for Himself.

I hope this helps; I know the concepts can be tough to get your head around. Probably the best introduction to these ideas that I've found is Loraine Boettner's "Reformed Doctrine of Predestination", which is a book from last century available on-Web. But please feel free to continue asking questions here. The book may be useful resolving some of your questions, but I always appreciate hearing it afresh from new viewpoints.

 

[meh]

Thank you for the help. We're between pastors right now at my church and there's really no one around at the moment for me to take my questions to and I didn't realize any of this until someone called me a Calvinist the other day.

What is important to keep in mind, particularly with respect to evangelism, is that we do not know all those whom God has elected.

Thank you for pointing that out to me. That was important for me to hear.

All men are born under the same condition in their depravity, and both elect and non-elect will refuse the Gospel and reject their Creator.

This confuses me. Two things I have read state that the I in TULIP is Irrisistable Grace- and irrisistable grace means that the elect basically cannot reject the gospel. God gives everyone an external call, but the elect get an internal call, and the Holy Spirit, and basically cannot reject it.

So that confuses me a bit. I was thinking that the elect will always respond, because they are elect to, and that others won't, because they can't.

Then I also wondered if a non-elect person ever does hear the gospel or seek it honestly if he can then be accepted and God will send him the Holy Spirit, although the person was originally not elected.

If you had "Unlimited Atonement", you'd have universalism -- everyone would be saved.

So I think what you're asking about is the doctrine of "Limited Atonement" -- that Christ died to save those God chose.

Everyone who's not a universalist holds to some view that the Atonement is limited. But you can see what a problem it is if God pumps up some decision on the part of the person. Then God is saying, "I value that decision of the person." It becomes a work-for-wages system. He's getting eternal life in exchange for that decision.

I thought it'd be interesting if the character of Michael Corleone (the Godfather) were in a skit confronting God about this: "Well I decided for you, whassamatta?" Of course the matter is that the decision wasn't deep. Hey, a gangster may very well find spirituality nice, may find a way to consider his behavior as redemptive, and so forth. But there's a deeper question than just the gangster's perception of reality.

In reality we're all gangsters. Total Inability constantly has us confronting God, "Whassamatta?" And it is only through God's mercy and forbearance that we aren't wiped clean off His Creation.

The Atonement must truly go so deep into our souls, that we can't fathom the depth required for it. We have to maintain this fact in order to come up with a plausible theology. This depth is largely what leads us to wonder about the limits God puts on His favor. Our shallowness leads us to ask why the Atonement doesn't deluge everyone in the breadth of God's love. But it seems God has His reasons for not picking everyone (cf. Rom 9:19ff for Paul's answer to this question).

If we step outside God's viewpoint and look at this from our own human level of understanding, then it's much the same as the free-will view. The Gospel is presented to everyone; everyone decides whether it's to be trusted, and those who trust in it are saved by it. People are permitted to decide -- but with a warning, there will come a time when they can no longer reject God and will undergo punishment.

The difference in Calvinism is in the way this humanly-same system looks to God. For while people hear the voice of the call to the Gospel, there is also the voice of God bringing spiritual life to people through His direct command. We're dead (Ep 2:1), if the external call were the only thing there, then nobody would humanly rise from the dead to answer it.

And if God brought spiritual life to everyone, everyone would answer it.

Since neither is the case, God must bring spiritual life only to some people -- and not on the basis of some shallow thing that we humans might do to grab His attention. He chooses for Himself.

Thank you. That was really clear and helped me a lot.

What would still confuse me is what I said above, about how I've read more than one place that elected cannot reject the offer of salvation. I see that it makes sense some people would be called and reject it anyway, it's just that I've not heard that before.

Also, is someone Calvinist if they believe TULIP. Or is Calvinism a denomination. I'm not even sure what Reformed means. I'll have to do more reading.

I hope this helps; I know the concepts can be tough to get your head around. Probably the best introduction to these ideas that I've found is Loraine Boettner's "Reformed Doctrine of Predestination", which is a book from last century available on-Web. But please feel free to continue asking questions here. The book may be useful resolving some of your questions, but I always appreciate hearing it afresh from new viewpoints.

I will get that book as soon as I can

 

[mlqurgw]

This confuses me. Two things I have read state that the I in TULIP is Irrisistable Grace- and irrisistable grace means that the elect basically cannot reject the gospel. God gives everyone an external call, but the elect get an internal call, and the Holy Spirit, and basically cannot reject it.

So that confuses me a bit. I was thinking that the elect will always respond, because they are elect to, and that others won't, because they can't.

Then I also wondered if a non-elect person ever does hear the gospel or seek it honestly if he can then be accepted and God will send him the Holy Spirit, although the person was originally not elected.

While the acrostic TULIP is useful it can be confusing. I prefer the term effectual grace. All those whom god has chosen from before the foundation of the world will be effectually called by the Gospel and come to saving faith in Christ. If a person ever hears the Gospel and believes savingly they are of the elect. Now what fru mentioned is that we all are natually the same, totally depraved sinners. We have no ability to seek God and we like it that way. God comes in the person of the Spirit and gives life to the dead sinner and he sees his need of Christ. that is when the Gospel becomes good news to him. It never was before. I have known folks who sat under the clear preaching of the Gospel for years and nerver heard it in the heart but one day it reached into their soul and saved them. It really isnt a concern that the non-elect will believe because he simply will not. He not only can't see his need of Christ but he doesn't want Him.

We evangelize and preach the Gospel because we don't know who the elect are and we do love people and want them to know Christ and see in Him all their desire. We can preach with confidence that it will bear fruit and serve the purpose of God. We need not use tactics to coerce and cajole in order to get people to make a profession but simply preach the Gospel in love and leave the rest to God. And yes we are commanded to preach the Gospel. We do not look at folks and ask if they are elect but simply and clearly preach and if they believe they are elct.

 

[bradfordl]

I think the point that was being made was that even an elect person would reject the call except for a prior work of the Spirit in that person. We're all born dead in our sins and trespasses.

Paul was of the elect, and yet for some time rejected the gospel - harshly persecuted it - but in the course of time, at the precise moment He planned, God worked that change in him and granted him the faith that saves.

 

[heymikey80]

What would still confuse me is what I said above, about how I've read more than one place that elected cannot reject the offer of salvation. I see that it makes sense some people would be called and reject it anyway, it's just that I've not heard that before.

Ah. Well, strictly speaking that idea "can't reject the offer" already presupposes something. It presupposes you're talking about the external call to believe that the Gospel is an offer of salvation and not the salvation itself.

I know that is confusing!

The Gospel isn't a "take-or-leave" offer. It's a declaration of victory in a war. Outwardly, the Gospel is a call or summons to ally yourself with the victor or face the consequences when He appears. But in the inward sense it's the Spirit summoning those whom He regenerates (who were dead, Ep 2:1).

One part of this is external: "Who will you side with?" Now that, that part an elect person may appear to reject time and time again. But ultimately, an elect person will come to rely on Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection to eternal life. In that way the elect will ultimately accept Christ.

But another part of this is internal: the Spirit bringing new spiritual people to birth (Jn 3:1-5). Those who are born don't really have a say in the matter. And they're born relying on those who gave them birth. Spiritually it's much the same: to have a spiritual life, you have to be born. And as you rely on the Spirit for your life you aren't born independent of the Spirit -- you rely on Him.

Even externally the call or summons of the Gospel isn't a "take-or-leave" offer, then. This "offer" promises thorough rescue to those submitted to Christ, and punishment to those defying Christ's rightful rule.

The Gospel has a promise that in the end, you can't leave it. You will take it one way or the other.

Also, is someone Calvinist if they believe TULIP. Or is Calvinism a denomination. I'm not even sure what Reformed means. I'll have to do more reading.

They're often mixed, because different people have different ideas how to use the words. To me "Calvinist" and "Reformed refer to a kind of theology. "Reformed", though, also refers to a church heritage. Reformed churches have a particular identification in the history of the Church and the Reformation.

Someone is Calvinist as to salvation (ie, "soteriology") if they believe TULIP. There are gradual departures from Calvinism dropping different precepts from TULIP, too. There are a very few denominations who call themselves "Calvinist", however Calvinism is a theological system drawn in large part from John Calvin's views. They're described in his "Institutes of the Christian Religion" and the Canons of Dordt. The Westminster Confession is also a Calvinistic Confession, as well as the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism and the Geneva Catechism. Soteriologically the Baptist London Confession of 1689 is also Calvinistic. Many of these standards are available on http://www.reformed.org .

Churches of the Reformation were subdivided early into three groups: Lutheran and the wider Reformed churches. This division occurred when Luther would not agree with broader Reformed views of the sacraments -- not all of whom agreed with Zwingli's "memorial" view of the sacraments. Not to open old wounds, but Calvin's view of the church and the sacraments is not Zwingli's -- although as Dispensational, Baptist and Arminian thought affects the Reformed church more and more people side with Zwingli as to sacramentology and ecclesiology. In some cases Reformed churches will take exception to these broader movements. These movements can remain Calvinistic as to salvation -- soteriologically -- but they are "less Reformed" as to the heritage of their views on the church (ecclesiology) and the sacraments.

Reformed churches more recently have tried to move in Calvin's pattern of dealing with these issues though. He thought they shouldn't divide the church, even if they were swallowed in large measure by the church. A quick look at his Commentaries on 1 Cor 1:2 confirms this for me.

Reformed churches were then further identified by their opposition to "Remonstrant" churches and Arminian theology, who were represented by Jacob Arminius' view and rejected by the Synod of Dordt in the early 1600's. Later on a broader Episcopal view and the Wesleyan/Methodist view also further identified Reformed churches by their defining different kinds of theology from the Reformed view.

 

[meh]

Thank you for all your help. I understand things a bit better now. I've got a lot to ponder and some books to get. I could ask a billion more questions, but I'm going to stop and focus on what's been covered here before rushing ahead. Thanks so much for patiently answering my questions.

 

[mlqurgw]

Thank you for all your help. I understand things a bit better now. I've got a lot to ponder and some books to get. I could ask a billion more questions, but I'm going to stop and focus on what's been covered here before rushing ahead. Thanks so much for patiently answering my questions.

You are very welcome. I look forward to more of your questions. I love for people to ask sincere questions out of a desire to learn. Many of the questions I get are posed in order to give me their answer and debate with me.