The 6 common misconceptions about what is called 'Calvinism'

[ArcticFox]

To my brothers and sisters in Christ, for the sake of unity, I wanted to clarify why the most common arguments against Calvinism reveal a misconception (misunderstanding) about what Calvinism teaches.

I want to address 6 popular misconceptions, and hopefully help others to see the beliefs of their brothers and sisters more clearly. Please remember that although you have every right to question these beliefs, please reference Scripture if you believe we are misguided.

Misconception #1

If Calvinism is true, then God is not loving​

Presentation: This argument goes something like this: Calvinism teaches us that God is going around picking who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, and he doesn't give everyone an equal chance. This is not the loving, compassionate God that we see in the Scriptures. Quoted verses include John 3, and 1 John 4:8.

Clarification: This argument seems logical, but it is more emotional than Scriptural. It assumes that the believer already knows what love is, and then applies this concept of love to God to see if he 'measures up;' of course, the God of Calvinism fails to measure up to the believers' standard of love, and is dismissed.

The response we must take is simple: God is love. Therefore, whatever God does is ultimately motivated out of a sense of love. We must also remember that the flip side of God's love is his wrath as well. Either way, God defines love, not us. Therefore, we are NEVER able to judge whether God is loving or not, because if the Scriptures teach that God does something, we know then that it comes from a loving God.

We believe firmly that God raised dead, lifeless sinners from their prison of death, and does so lovingly. If it were not for his actions, we would remain in our death; this makes God ultimately wonderfully loving.

Misconception #2

Calvinism turns people into robots​

Presentation: If God is completely sovereign like you say he is, and he is choosing people to come into salvation, than he is turning people into robots, devoid of a will.

Clarification: I'm not sure who popularized this phrase, the concept of a 'robot,' but it is still not a Scriptural argument against Calvinism.

This argument assumes that there is such a thing as a free will in which people ultimately make their own decisions and decide their own destiny; this assumes that free will not only exists, but that it exists in such a way that man is ultimately in charge of his own fate (in terms of his own choices). This concept of free will is foreign to the Scriptures.

Calvinists believe that people have their own will; really we do ! However, we do not believe that these wills are completely free to do whatever can be done. Instead, we believe that we are only able to do what our nature allows us to do; if our nature is sin, we can only sin. If our natures are regenerated by God, we are 'freed' to live in righteousness; but ONLY if God regenerates our hearts.

Our condition prior to regeneration:

1) Dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1)

2) Walking according to Satan's ways (Eph 2:2)

3) Indulged in our fleshly desires (Eph 2:3)

4) Separated from Christ (Eph 2:12)

5) Spiritually unable to discern truth (1 Cor 2:14)

6) Having a heart of stone (Ezekiel 11:9)

7) Spiritually unable to come to Christ without the Father drawing us (John 6:44)

8) Slaves of sin (Romans 6:20, John 8:34)

Consider #1 as the strongest point of our argument: a dead man can do nothing, just as a spiritually dead man can do nothing spiritually.

We are never robots, but have a will that needs fixing. It is not that we want bad things, its that we need our 'wanter' fixed.

Misconception #3

Calvinism denies the human will​

Presentation: This is basically the same as argument misconception #2, but it is slightly different. It says that Calvinism fails to acknowledge that we make decisions all the time. I can choose to eat ramen, or I can choose to eat yakisoba. I can choose to do my laundry today, or I can choose to play soccer. I can choose to ignore replying to this post, or I can choose to do so. See? I clearly have a free will to do what I choose to do. Calvinism denies this.

Clarification: Calvinism addresses that there is indeed a will in people, and that this will is present in that person's decisions. There is no evidence contrary to Calvinism that people choose to do things, as clearly any Calvinist knows this very well.

The true argument still lies in the nature of the teachings of God's sovereignty and our wills. We do not have 'free wills' in the sense that we can choose anything we want. Our wills must be 'fixed.' Here is how God fixes us, not in particular order:

1) He chooses us before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4, John 15:16-19, 1 Thess. 1:4)

2) He calls us (Matt. 22:14)

3) He regenerates us by enlightening our hearts to his glories, and swapping our heart of stone for a heart of flesh (Eph. 1:18, Ezekiel 11:19, Eph 1:18)

4) Makes us alive by raising us from our death in order to do good works that he has prepared for us (Eph 2:5-6, Eph 2:10)

4) Seals us with the Holy Spirit, promising us our inheritance (Eph 1:13)

5) Promises never to lose us, but to keep us (John 6:39, John 10:28, Phil 1:6, Eph 1:13, John 6:47, Heb. 12:2)

6) Enslaves us to righteousness (Romans 6:18)

I hope this clarifies a key confusion on what a Calvinist believes the Scriptures teach about the will of man.

Misconception #4

If Calvinism is true, then he must be cruel; he's preventing people from coming to him for salvation!​

Presentation: If God chooses who comes to him and who doesn't, than surely there will be people who want to come to God, and he will turn them away. The Bible clearly teaches that God will not turn away anyone who comes to him!

Clarification:This statement shows a profound misunderstanding of Calvinism. Calvinism teaches that are completely unable to come to God because we do not want to come to God. The only thing that can make us want to come to God, is not ourselves, but God. Without God, we will always desire sin. Romans 14:23 teaches that whatever does not proceed from faith is sin, and since we are to glorify God in EVERYTHING we do (1 Cor 10:31), everything we do apart from Christ is sin; we are unable to do anything but sin apart from being regenerated by Christ.

You see, even if we give to the poor and sacrifice our life to save another, it is not done out of faith in God and for his glory, and thus, by the Bible's definition, it is a sin. Please read carefully Romans 14, especially verse 23, the last verse.

Therefore, God does not prevent anyone from coming because no one seeks for God apart from God working in their lives. See Romans 3:11, that no one seeks for God, and furthermore all have turned aside and become worthless (Romans 3:12).

Contrary to what the misconception says, Calvinism teaches that God, while people are dead in sin and unable to do anything to love him or come to him, raises up people to come to him and love him. He does this by showing them how wonderful and amazing he is.

I loved the analogy another poster used about onions and liver. I'll make my own. Say you come to Japan, and you are fed some raw liver (yes, they eat it here). You HATE it. You can't stand the smell, the taste, the look. But one day, someone comes to you and touches your tongue and says, 'You will taste and see now.' The next day, at the restaurant you visit with a friend, you see a picture of raw liver. What's going on? You hated it yesterday, but now you WANT to try it again. You order it, thinking it can't be good, but take a whiff. It smells WONDERFUL. You take a bite... Unbelievable! What you hated yesterday, you LOVE today. You absolutely adore the smell and taste of raw liver, and you can't get enough.

This is our nature before and after being regenerated. Before Christ, we hate the things of God, even if we mask it under a thin veil of piety ('oh, God is ok with me, I just don't want to comitt my whole life to him'). Then, after having our 'wanter' fixed, we learn to love and desire him the way we should. Who fixes it? We believe God is the only one who can fix our broken 'wanters' (our wills, what we desire, are crooked until God makes them straight).

We believe whole-heartedly in the truth of John 6:37, that whoever comes to Christ he will by no means cast out (provided that coming is in faith; some will come not in faith and Christ will tell them that he NEVER knew them, Matt. 7:23).

Misconception #5

Calvinism makes people prideful, because they believe that God favors them and specifically chose them rather than others.​

Presentation: If you believe that God chose you and not another, you will become prideful and think that you are somehow special or more worthy than the other person.

Clarification: This is not a Bibilical argument, but an opinion. It assumes that God chooses us for our own merit. The Bible clearly teaches that we are not chosen because we are more worthy, or better. In fact, the Bible teaches that God chooses the despised things of this world to bring down the high and mighty (haughty) (1 Cor. 1:28).

We believe we are chosen not because we were good, for no one is good but God (Mark 10:18). We believe we were chosen because God simply chose to do it (Romans 9:14-16, especially 16). Note how God speaks to Israel about their chosen status:

Deuteronomy 7:6 “For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. 7 It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, 8 but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers ...

We believe God chose us because he loves us, and he loves us because he does (circular logic there, but that's okay; it's biblical).

So, with this evidence, we are now forced to realize our complete helplessness prior to Christ, and our total lack of worthiness of what we have been called into. We are forced down onto our knees to beg for additional mercy and grace, for we know we are undeserving and lowly, having no grounds for boasting but the Lord himself.

We have nothing to be prideful about. In fact, if you believe that you chose God and another didn't, you might begin to think that you 'get it' and the other doesn't it. Maybe you're smarter? Maybe you're wittier? Who knows, but if you are the one who made the good choice, there is some possibility for pride there. But with Calvinism, the possibility for pride lies only in a misunderstanding of the doctrines of grace.

Misconception #6

Calvinism is a product of intellectualism and theologians in ivory towers. It isn't something that the average person would ever believe without these intellectuals like John Calvin​

Presentation: As the misconception says, Calvin is just an ivory tower theologian who strokes his long beard while pouring over theology books, disconnected from the real world and how things really work.

Clarification: I won't repeat all of the verses I've quoted so far, for they are sufficient to be quoted once (some were quoted twice or thrice). This is not the product of mere intellectualism, and Calvin wasn't the first to 'think it up.' In fact, we believe these teachings are present in the Old Testament in amazing ways; you can see many of my OT verse quotes throughout. Check out Proverbs 16:33, 21:1, 16:9, 20:24. Check out Exodus 7:3, or Daniel 4:35.

We believe that this is of vital importance for regular believers. There is great comfort and joy in knowing God's sovereignty, especially his sovereignty over our salvation, for we can be sure that he will work out his good in our lives (Romans 8:28). We can be sure he will brings us into completion (Hebrews 12:2, Romans 8:29-30).

When a loved one passes away, or when a tradgedy strikes, it is of little comfort to say, 'This is not God's will, but he can make something good come of it.' But if your distress is of God, then you know that it is for your good, and that everything is under control, and that God will bring about his ultimate purposes for his glory (Isaiah 55:11). He is jealous for his glory (Exodus 34:14, Isaiah 42:8), and we should never think to give his glory to something such as 'chance' or 'human free will.'

-----------------------------------------------------------

I hope this post does amazing good to clarify some common misconceptions, and that the people of God can begin to better fellowship because of it (at least in some small way here on this little messageboard).

 

[UMP]

To my brothers and sisters in Christ, for the sake of unity, I wanted to clarify why the most common arguments against Calvinism reveal a misconception (misunderstanding) about what Calvinism teaches.

I want to address 6 popular misconceptions, and hopefully help others to see the beliefs of their brothers and sisters more clearly. Please remember that although you have every right to question these beliefs, please reference Scripture if you believe we are misguided.

Misconception #1

If Calvinism is true, then God is not loving​

Presentation: This argument goes something like this: Calvinism teaches us that God is going around picking who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, and he doesn't give everyone an equal chance. This is not the loving, compassionate God that we see in the Scriptures. Quoted verses include John 3, and 1 John 4:8.

Clarification: This argument seems logical, but it is more emotional than Scriptural. It assumes that the believer already knows what love is, and then applies this concept of love to God to see if he 'measures up;' of course, the God of Calvinism fails to measure up to the believers' standard of love, and is dismissed.

The response we must take is simple: God is love. Therefore, whatever God does is ultimately motivated out of a sense of love. We must also remember that the flip side of God's love is his wrath as well. Either way, God defines love, not us. Therefore, we are NEVER able to judge whether God is loving or not, because if the Scriptures teach that God does something, we know then that it comes from a loving God.

We believe firmly that God raised dead, lifeless sinners from their prison of death, and does so lovingly. If it were not for his actions, we would remain in our death; this makes God ultimately wonderfully loving.

Misconception #2

Calvinism turns people into robots​

Presentation: If God is completely sovereign like you say he is, and he is choosing people to come into salvation, than he is turning people into robots, devoid of a will.

Clarification: I'm not sure who popularized this phrase, the concept of a 'robot,' but it is still not a Scriptural argument against Calvinism.

This argument assumes that there is such a thing as a free will in which people ultimately make their own decisions and decide their own destiny; this assumes that free will not only exists, but that it exists in such a way that man is ultimately in charge of his own fate (in terms of his own choices). This concept of free will is foreign to the Scriptures.

Calvinists believe that people have their own will; really we do ! However, we do not believe that these wills are completely free to do whatever can be done. Instead, we believe that we are only able to do what our nature allows us to do; if our nature is sin, we can only sin. If our natures are regenerated by God, we are 'freed' to live in righteousness; but ONLY if God regenerates our hearts.

Our condition prior to regeneration:

1) Dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1)

2) Walking according to Satan's ways (Eph 2:2)

3) Indulged in our fleshly desires (Eph 2:3)

4) Separated from Christ (Eph 2:12)

5) Spiritually unable to discern truth (1 Cor 2:14)

6) Having a heart of stone (Ezekiel 11:9)

7) Spiritually unable to come to Christ without the Father drawing us (John 6:44)

8) Slaves of sin (Romans 6:20, John 8:34)

Consider #1 as the strongest point of our argument: a dead man can do nothing, just as a spiritually dead man can do nothing spiritually.

We are never robots, but have a will that needs fixing. It is not that we want bad things, its that we need our 'wanter' fixed.

Misconception #3

Calvinism denies the human will​

Presentation: This is basically the same as argument misconception #2, but it is slightly different. It says that Calvinism fails to acknowledge that we make decisions all the time. I can choose to eat ramen, or I can choose to eat yakisoba. I can choose to do my laundry today, or I can choose to play soccer. I can choose to ignore replying to this post, or I can choose to do so. See? I clearly have a free will to do what I choose to do. Calvinism denies this.

Clarification: Calvinism addresses that there is indeed a will in people, and that this will is present in that person's decisions. There is no evidence contrary to Calvinism that people choose to do things, as clearly any Calvinist knows this very well.

The true argument still lies in the nature of the teachings of God's sovereignty and our wills. We do not have 'free wills' in the sense that we can choose anything we want. Our wills must be 'fixed.' Here is how God fixes us, not in particular order:

1) He chooses us before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4, John 15:16-19, 1 Thess. 1:4)

2) He calls us (Matt. 22:14)

3) He regenerates us by enlightening our hearts to his glories, and swapping our heart of stone for a heart of flesh (Eph. 1:18, Ezekiel 11:19, Eph 1:18)

4) Makes us alive by raising us from our death in order to do good works that he has prepared for us (Eph 2:5-6, Eph 2:10)

4) Seals us with the Holy Spirit, promising us our inheritance (Eph 1:13)

5) Promises never to lose us, but to keep us (John 6:39, John 10:28, Phil 1:6, Eph 1:13, John 6:47, Heb. 12:2)

6) Enslaves us to righteousness (Romans 6:18)

I hope this clarifies a key confusion on what a Calvinist believes the Scriptures teach about the will of man.

Misconception #4

If Calvinism is true, then he must be cruel; he's preventing people from coming to him for salvation!​

Presentation: If God chooses who comes to him and who doesn't, than surely there will be people who want to come to God, and he will turn them away. The Bible clearly teaches that God will not turn away anyone who comes to him!

Clarification:This statement shows a profound misunderstanding of Calvinism. Calvinism teaches that are completely unable to come to God because we do not want to come to God. The only thing that can make us want to come to God, is not ourselves, but God. Without God, we will always desire sin. Romans 14:23 teaches that whatever does not proceed from faith is sin, and since we are to glorify God in EVERYTHING we do (1 Cor 10:31), everything we do apart from Christ is sin; we are unable to do anything but sin apart from being regenerated by Christ.

You see, even if we give to the poor and sacrifice our life to save another, it is not done out of faith in God and for his glory, and thus, by the Bible's definition, it is a sin. Please read carefully Romans 14, especially verse 23, the last verse.

Therefore, God does not prevent anyone from coming because no one seeks for God apart from God working in their lives. See Romans 3:11, that no one seeks for God, and furthermore all have turned aside and become worthless (Romans 3:12).

Contrary to what the misconception says, Calvinism teaches that God, while people are dead in sin and unable to do anything to love him or come to him, raises up people to come to him and love him. He does this by showing them how wonderful and amazing he is.

I loved the analogy another poster used about onions and liver. I'll make my own. Say you come to Japan, and you are fed some raw liver (yes, they eat it here). You HATE it. You can't stand the smell, the taste, the look. But one day, someone comes to you and touches your tongue and says, 'You will taste and see now.' The next day, at the restaurant you visit with a friend, you see a picture of raw liver. What's going on? You hated it yesterday, but now you WANT to try it again. You order it, thinking it can't be good, but take a whiff. It smells WONDERFUL. You take a bite... Unbelievable! What you hated yesterday, you LOVE today. You absolutely adore the smell and taste of raw liver, and you can't get enough.

This is our nature before and after being regenerated. Before Christ, we hate the things of God, even if we mask it under a thin veil of piety ('oh, God is ok with me, I just don't want to comitt my whole life to him'). Then, after having our 'wanter' fixed, we learn to love and desire him the way we should. Who fixes it? We believe God is the only one who can fix our broken 'wanters' (our wills, what we desire, are crooked until God makes them straight).

We believe whole-heartedly in the truth of John 6:37, that whoever comes to Christ he will by no means cast out (provided that coming is in faith; some will come not in faith and Christ will tell them that he NEVER knew them, Matt. 7:23).

Misconception #5

Calvinism makes people prideful, because they believe that God favors them and specifically chose them rather than others.​

Presentation: If you believe that God chose you and not another, you will become prideful and think that you are somehow special or more worthy than the other person.

Clarification: This is not a Bibilical argument, but an opinion. It assumes that God chooses us for our own merit. The Bible clearly teaches that we are not chosen because we are more worthy, or better. In fact, the Bible teaches that God chooses the despised things of this world to bring down the high and mighty (haughty) (1 Cor. 1:28).

We believe we are chosen not because we were good, for no one is good but God (Mark 10:18). We believe we were chosen because God simply chose to do it (Romans 9:14-16, especially 16). Note how God speaks to Israel about their chosen status:

Deuteronomy 7:6 “For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. 7 It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, 8 but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers ...

We believe God chose us because he loves us, and he loves us because he does (circular logic there, but that's okay; it's biblical).

So, with this evidence, we are now forced to realize our complete helplessness prior to Christ, and our total lack of worthiness of what we have been called into. We are forced down onto our knees to beg for additional mercy and grace, for we know we are undeserving and lowly, having no grounds for boasting but the Lord himself.

We have nothing to be prideful about. In fact, if you believe that you chose God and another didn't, you might begin to think that you 'get it' and the other doesn't it. Maybe you're smarter? Maybe you're wittier? Who knows, but if you are the one who made the good choice, there is some possibility for pride there. But with Calvinism, the possibility for pride lies only in a misunderstanding of the doctrines of grace.

Misconception #6

Calvinism is a product of intellectualism and theologians in ivory towers. It isn't something that the average person would ever believe without these intellectuals like John Calvin​

Presentation: As the misconception says, Calvin is just an ivory tower theologian who strokes his long beard while pouring over theology books, disconnected from the real world and how things really work.

Clarification: I won't repeat all of the verses I've quoted so far, for they are sufficient to be quoted once (some were quoted twice or thrice). This is not the product of mere intellectualism, and Calvin wasn't the first to 'think it up.' In fact, we believe these teachings are present in the Old Testament in amazing ways; you can see many of my OT verse quotes throughout. Check out Proverbs 16:33, 21:1, 16:9, 20:24. Check out Exodus 7:3, or Daniel 4:35.

We believe that this is of vital importance for regular believers. There is great comfort and joy in knowing God's sovereignty, especially his sovereignty over our salvation, for we can be sure that he will work out his good in our lives (Romans 8:28). We can be sure he will brings us into completion (Hebrews 12:2, Romans 8:29-30).

When a loved one passes away, or when a tradgedy strikes, it is of little comfort to say, 'This is not God's will, but he can make something good come of it.' But if your distress is of God, then you know that it is for your good, and that everything is under control, and that God will bring about his ultimate purposes for his glory (Isaiah 55:11). He is jealous for his glory (Exodus 34:14, Isaiah 42:8), and we should never think to give his glory to something such as 'chance' or 'human free will.'

-----------------------------------------------------------

I hope this post does amazing good to clarify some common misconceptions, and that the people of God can begin to better fellowship because of it (at least in some small way here on this little messageboard).

WELL DONE !!
My only suggestion is to switch out the word "calvinism" and replace it with these words: "the truth as taught in the word of God"

 

[willard3]

WELL DONE !!
My only suggestion is to switch out the word "calvinism" and replace it with these words: "the truth as taught in the word of God"

That, my friend, is a matter of opinion right now. For the record, I'm willing to treat Catholicism as a matter of opinion for the sake of argument, even though I have different feelings on the issue. Basically, what I get from that phrase is that all non-Calvinists are doomed.

Good OP, btw. Very informative.

 

[vrunca]

First of all...thank you Articfox for posting all of this information!! I read it once and I am going back right after to re-read it, so I can get a better understanding of my Calvinist brothers and sisters. I asked about it before a long time ago, but just got arguments and people other than Calvinists putting in their opinions. This is really good!

WELL DONE !!
My only suggestion is to switch out the word "calvinism" and replace it with these words: "the truth as taught in the word of God"

This one I am going to comment on too...it's the last phrase..."the truth as taught in the word of God".

It is refreshing to see that a Calvinist believer truly feels this about what you are being taught and what you believe! I don't see this as arrogant or wrong for you to say this at all...in fact I was truly excited for you!!

What is hard for me to understand is why is it that when someone verbalizes how strong their convictions are toward their faith, like making a comment like that, they are being very arrogant? To me, it's like when Catholics say that we are the one true Church. That is how strong my faith is in the Church...and obviously by saying that what was said earlier about what Arcticfox wrote is "the truth as taught in the word of God", is a very positive statement about your faith. Shouldn't we all feel that way about our church, no matter which one we choose to belong to? Shouldn't we all be able to say that the church I belong to is the one true Church, or teaches the truth as taught in the word of God? I don't know but if my own faith was not strong enough in the faith that I follow, then I would be out finding another church! But it is so nice to see that you feel that strongly about you faith UMP to stand up and make a comment like that!!!

 

[UMP]

Basically, what I get from that phrase is that all non-Calvinists are doomed.

Which is exactly why I don't like the label of "calvinism".

First of all, I am no mans judge. God is the final authority and His judgements are not only final but eternally just, whether I currently understand it or not.

Now, if one reads the Bible (the inspired word of God) and comes to the conclusion that it teaches that some people are, as you put it, "doomed" (justly, might I add), is it the truth or not?
If it is the truth, what would you like me to "name" said truth? If I call it something other than "the truth as taught in the word of God", it's much easier to dismiss as nonsense, n'est pas?

Just something to chew on.

 

[ArcticFox]

Thanks for the feedback.

Calvinists (those who believe in what are called the 'doctrines of grace') have never believed, and do not believe now, that one must call themself a Calvinist or even believe in these truths to be saved.

However, we would hope that EVERYONE would come to this knowledge of what we believe to be the truth, so that all can give glory to God and offer wondrous praise and thanks for all that God has done. We believe that anyone, convicted of these truths from the Holy Scriptures, will grow in love for God, in their courage to live out the Christian life, and overlow in praise to God in worship.

Although yes, I believe this to be the 'one truth,' I wouldn't assign this one truth to any particular church.

For more information about Calvinism, I would recommend the following websites:

Desiring God - Ministry of John Piper

Monergism - Very scholastic resource

Reformed.org - Another somewhat scholastic resource

A really good, but slightly long article, is found here:

Desiring God Ministries' Beliefs about Calvinism

A good article that is somewhat subjective in what Calvinism does for a person is found here:

Ten Effects of Believing in the Five Points of Calvinism

And, just for the recorded, I'm not dogmatic about the L in TULIP:

T = Total Depravity (we are corrupt in every part of our nature, but not as corrupt as we could be)

U = Unconditional Election (God chooses us for salvation not based on anything we are or did, but on his reasons alone)

L = Limited Atonement (Christ died only for the elect, those who will be saved)

I = Irresistible Grace (once God converts our hearts, we come to him because he is so lovely and glorious that we can't help but come to him in faith)

P = Perseverance of the Saints (God will continue the good work he began in us until the day of completion, not losing a single one of us)

The L point is still an area where I find little Scriptural support. It is not, however, a crucial point, since the L point of TULIP is more a logical outworking of the system of doctrine than it is a doctrinal teaching from the Scriptures. There is some evidence, but attempting to address verses that speak to the contrary make it difficult for me to respect my Bible translation method when I am seemingly twisting words around. I just feel that I have to go to some extreme means to justify the L point of TULIP, whereas the others I can now easily see the justification for it, and I can find evidence for them throughout the Scriptures as I do my daily reads.

But believing in the L point is sometimes quite moot; regardless, the atonement only ends up applying to those who come to Christ for salvation.

I love these truths so much. I would be greatly pleased if my Christian brothers and sisters of a different conviction would take a look at these truths and research them from the Scriptures. I would encourage people to pursue these things, and to ask the tough questions of the Scriptures; by searching the Scriptures diligently, these doctrines can become a rock-solid foundation for ministry, including evangelism, missions, care-taking, resolving disputes, etc.

 

[willard3]

Sorry if I sounded snippy. It's hard to gauge emotions over teh Intarweb. Maybe emoticons would have helped.

It just seemed arrogant to me, and that you were implying that non-Calvinists are morons who can't read the Bible according to your/Calvin's interpretation.

Yes, I know Catholics do the same, and I am one of them sometimes. I'm really trying hard to work on that.

I agree with Vrunca now that I think about it.

 

[Iosias]

The L point is still an area where I find little Scriptural support.

You may find the following helpful: http://www.christianforums.com/t4203742-a-defense-of-limited-atonement.html

 

[JAL]

You argue that to accuse the Calvinistic God of being unloving is to judge God by human standards of love. You say it is wrong to judge God by human standards:

God defines love, not us. Therefore, we are NEVER able to judge whether God is loving or not, because if the Scriptures teach that God does something, we know then that it comes from a loving God.

Without getting into my opinions as to whether Calvinism is true or not, this particular statement is actually fallacious, logically. The theologian is indeed SUPPOSED to judge God by his own human standards of ethics and love, for to do otherwise would culminate in relativism and/or logical inconsistency. Stated succinctly, we cannot espouse a double standard of love consisting of one standard for God and another for men. Allow me to explain why.


If virtues such as love have a different meaning for God than they do for men, the promises of Scripture are worthless and self-contradictory. Take for example the promise that He will love us for all eternity. If "His love" could entail the type of behavior that I myself would currently dissociate with love (such as putting an innocent man in hell), then the promise that God will "love" me for all eternity ought to TERRIFY me rather than CONSOLE me. Thus the promises become self-contradictory, because they purport to give us ground for reassurance but actually give us cause for alarm.

Thus, to be logically consistent, any ethic that I would currently apply to myself, I must also apply to God. One way to do this is to imagine how I would act if I were a judge. If I would deem it wrong to condemn an innocent man, I cannot then have a “God of justice” condemning the innocent.

I'm not expressing any opinions here as to whether Calvinism condemns the innocent. I'll let the reader(s) decide that for themselves. All I'm doing is pointing out that we need to be logically consistent.

Not that this is going to change your view on the matter. My experience in this forum is that virtually no one changes their views regardless of how many logically fallacies are pointed out to them. I am just writing this out of boredom...

 

[ArcticFox]

You may find the following helpful: http://www.christianforums.com/t4203742-a-defense-of-limited-atonement.html

Thank you, I did find it helpful. It reminded me of the verses that seem to speak of a limited atonement, especially powerful are the verses about Jesus laying down his life for the sheep.

However, it could easily be argued that none of these verses are overtly exclusive. The verse about Jesus prayer is exclusive for sure (he prays for his people, and specifically says he's NOT praying for the world). However, there is no such specificity in the verses about the atonment. It would be grand if there were a verse saying, 'I lay my life down for the sheep. Not for the world do I lay my life down ...'

Such a verse does not exist. We must also address some other verses that seem to speak to the contrary of the doctrine of Limited Atonement. Here are a handful:

1) 1John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

2) John 3:16 “For God so loved the world,* that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

3) 2Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

Other verses are sometimes used, but they are not problematic (for example, verses that say that 'Christ died for the ungodly' do not insinuate he died for ALL of the ungodly, and so are not a problem for a Limited Atonement view).

 

[ArcticFox]

[/SIZE]If virtues such as love have a different meaning for God than they do for men, the promises of Scripture are worthless and self-contradictory. Take for example the promise that He will love us for all eternity. If "His love" could entail the type of behavior that I myself would currently dissociate with love (such as putting an innocent man in hell), then the promise that God will "love" me for all eternity ought to TERRIFY me rather than CONSOLE me. Thus the promises become self-contradictory, because they purport to give us ground for reassurance but actually give us cause for alarm.

Thus, to be logically consistent, any ethic that I would currently apply to myself, I must also apply to God. One way to do this is to imagine how I would act if I were a judge. If I would deem it wrong to condemn an innocent man, I cannot then have a “God of justice” condemning the innocent.

I see what you are trying to say, but I disagree that it is a logical fallacy. In fact, I think it is dangerous to assume that we can judge God's character.

Here is why:

Let's say a friend comes to you and says that he wants to give you the money that he got from selling his gun collection. You're glad he's sold them, and tell him it's not necessary for him to give you the money. He said he's so glad to be free of his collection that he was idolizing, that he wants you to have the money. You take it; it's $3400

The next day, you stumble upon a mutual friend who tells you that your other friend sold the gun collection for $5600. You now know your friend lied to you, because he told you that's how much he sold them all for.

You go back to your friend and, in a morbid moment of irony, shoot him dead.

Did you act righteously? Were you justified in your killing? If you answer yes, I think you are probably not living in accordance with your beliefs. If you answered no, and say that it is overly harsh to kill your friend over lying about how much he sold something for, than you put yourself in the place of judging God (remember Ananias and Saphira, Acts 5?), since you say that we judge God by our standards.

Another example:

You and your friends go to Las Vegas, NV (USA) for the weekend. You expect to have a great time. When you get there, you quickly realize that you feel it's a place of rampant sexual sin and immoral gambling activity. You feel it is a dark and wicked place, and command all of your friends to leave. You all leave together, and you instruct NONE of them to look back at all, but to drive away looking forward. One friend in your guy turns around and gazes at the lights of Las Vegas, and you promptly pull over and end his life, then press onward.

Did you act righteously? How would your human standard judge this behavior? Contrast it with the story of Lot's wife (Genesis 19:26).

To judge God by what WE would consider justice or love is a huge error. God is the all supreme judge, and he has all authority to administer his justice. Just as you would not think yourself fit to dish out sentences to criminals unless you were a judge, so we are not fit to do many things that God is entirely righteous to do.

Please judge the following commands/stories by your standard of human love, compassion, and justice:

Genesis 7 -- God kills all human and animal life sparing those on the ark

Genesis 22 -- Abraham, rather than question God's goodness, decides he will go ahead and sacrifice his son (though he is stopped)

Exodus 12 -- God kills all the firstborn of Egypt, including many very, very young children

Deut 21:18-21 -- Death pentalty for children who are disobedient to parents

I think we must acknowledge that there is indeed a double standard for humans and for God (and I would hope so).

 

[JAL]

I see what you are trying to say, but I disagree that it is a logical fallacy. In fact, I think it is dangerous to assume that we can judge God's character.

Here is why:

Let's say a friend comes to you and says that he wants to give you the money that he got from selling his gun collection. You're glad he's sold them, and tell him it's not necessary for him to give you the money. He said he's so glad to be free of his collection that he was idolizing, that he wants you to have the money. You take it; it's $3400

The next day, you stumble upon a mutual friend who tells you that your other friend sold the gun collection for $5600. You now know your friend lied to you, because he told you that's how much he sold them all for.

You go back to your friend and, in a morbid moment of irony, shoot him dead.

Did you act righteously? Were you justified in your killing? If you answer yes, I think you are probably not living in accordance with your beliefs. If you answered no, and say that it is overly harsh to kill your friend over lying about how much he sold something for, than you put yourself in the place of judging God (remember Ananias and Saphira, Acts 5?), since you say that we judge God by our standards.

This misses my point. You are getting into specific examples of applied ethics. My point was more broad than that. I was saying that, REGARDLESS of how a particular theologian applies ethics, he must apply the same standard to God in order to be logically consistent (with himself). For example, if he says that it is okay for he himself, in some situations, to tell a "white lie", he cannot then say it is always wrong for God to tell a white lie. That would be a double standard (relativism). Let's now look at your example. If a theologian analyzing your example concludes that he himself would be justified in killing the guy who lied about the price, then he needs to be consistent, that is, he must also say that it is okay for God to manifest the same type of behavior. I was only arguing for consistency, I wasn't dealing with specific ethical questions such as "is a white lie okay?". Since the rest of you examples, in the same way, completely miss my point, I won't address them individually. You finally conclude,

I think we must acknowledge that there is indeed a double standard for humans and for God (and I would hope so).

Nope. A double standard is relativism, and it results in logical inconsistency for reasons stated.

Since you have opened the door to applied ethics, I may as well point out one unfortunate corollary of my argument, namely that the traditional way in which original sin is extrapolated is unacceptable.
In fact the more candid Reformed thinkers such as [FONT=&quot]Berkouwer have admitted that the Reformed extrapolation of Adam's fall doesn't make sense. It is not that Berkouwer denies original sin in Adam. But he wrote a 600 page book called 'Sin' where he demonstrates the inadequacies of the Reformed extrapolation. Berkouwer has no solution. The REASON mainstream Christianity cannot solve this problem is an unwillingness to be open-minded to a few non-traditional assumptions. I have a solution, not because I'm smarter than mainstream theologians (I'm a lot dumber, actually), but because I'm open to a few possibilities they won't entertain.

Briefly, I'll summarize the problem. If I were a judge, I would not condemn one man for the sins of another. To be consistent, therefore, I cannot have God condemning men for the sins of Adam. Again, I am not denying original sin in Adam. I am merely pointing out that federalism (representationalism) doesn't make sense. Our understanding of Adam needs to change.

I'm well aware of the arguments cited by Charles Hodge and others in support of federalism. I'm sure you'll begin listing them, but I can EASILY refute them one by one, because these arguments are logically self-contradictory. But I probably won't bother, because Reformed theologians such as Berkouwer have already refuted the Reformed defense of federalism and, indeed, have probably done a better job than I could do.

Oh, what the heck, I was going to stop there, but I will look at one of your examples of applied ethics because you apparently imagine that I do, indeed, make exceptions for God. How little you know about me. You suggest that no one, not even I myself, could conclude, from the following example, that God and men can have and should have the same ethical standards - here is your challenge to me:

Please judge the following commands/stories by your standard of human love, compassion, and justice...
Genesis 7 -- God kills all human and animal life sparing those on the ark

As for the human beings, they all deserved judgment/hell in Adam, so I don't see the problem there. What about the animals? Indeed, I myself am an Old Earth Creationist. How do we justify millions of years of animal suffering? Why would God allow innocent suffering? Isn't that unjust? I asked myself that question a long time ago. My conclusion: "Innocent suffering is normally unjust, with only two exceptions." The first exception is voluntary suffering. The second exception is much too complex to discuss here. The trouble is, I wasn't completely convinced that animal suffering falls under even the second exception. So I now hold a non-traditional theory of animals, as follows. (That is to say, since I as a judge wouldn't likely enforce innocent suffering, I am most consistent if I say that God wouldn't allow innocent animals to suffer).

The brain and body can and does have a huge impact on our mind, it largely determines our pscychology. If an animal brain does not allow for a sense of right and wrong, therefore, an animal cannot really be regared as evil. Thus animals are not, in my view, evil even when they kill others somewhat capriciously. However, the fact that a given animal is not currently performing evil tells us nothing about the behavior of its soul BEFORE it was placed into the animal body. A simple way to justify animal suffering, therefore, is to argue that their souls are actually fallen angels. They suffer because they deserve it, and will eventually be thrown into the lake of fire. Jesus Himself furnished a graphic example of the kinship of animals and demons when He cast the 2000 demons out of the demoniac into a herd of 2000 pigs. He wasn't being cruel to "innocent animals" - He was just grouping the demons with their own kind.

As for the other biblical challenges raised, I've already considered them. In each case I could show, had I the time, that I am quite consistent, that I do not apply a double standard of ethics to man and God. I'm disappointed that you would propose a double standard that defines God as an enforcer of innocent suffering. I see Him as a God of love, mercy, justice, and compassion.


[/FONT]

 

[ArcticFox]

Hi JAL,

You posted a long and thoughtful message. However, because it contains no references to Scripture, and seems to be an entirely (or mostly) philosophical argument, I would like to side-step the discussion at this point.

Although I don't condemn all philosophical 'ramblings' about the nature of God (C.S. Lewis certainly produced some that many consider helpful), I don't consider them necessary. In fact, I prefer to stay away from Bible-informed philosophy and stick to Bible study itself.

Thanks for the reply

 

[CSMR]

For example, if he says that it is okay for he himself, in some situations, to tell a "white lie", he cannot then say it is always wrong for God to tell a white lie. That would be a double standard (relativism).

Double standards are not relativism. Relativism involves a lack of objectivity in understanding ethics whereas double standards do not involve a lack of objectivity.

Human ethics is not a concept that applies to God. If you want to have something called divine ethics you will have to invent it. The rather infinite and categorical differences between God and man disallow one from making the easy analogies between human ethical statements and divine ethical statements whatever they are.

Human ethical action is the demonstration of saving faith in Jesus Christ. Note that God does not posess saving faith in Jesus Christ.

Or thought of another way, human ethical action is the obedience of the command of God. To extend the bounds of this statement and apply it to God you would have to have a notion of God commanding himself.

(Moreover you would need to define before making arguments what double standards are. I have taken that double standards is to deny that if man should do x then God should do x, where x can be one of the statements above and has the same structure in both cases. You would need to say what statments x can be and why this results in inconsitency.)

Briefly, I'll summarize the problem. If I were a judge, I would not condemn one man for the sins of another. To be consistent, therefore, I cannot have God condemning men for the sins of Adam. Again, I am not denying original sin in Adam. I am merely pointing out that federalism (representationalism) doesn't make sense. Our understanding of Adam needs to change.

Oh quite likely. But if one understands Adam as that person (existing or symbolic) whose nature we posess then we can easily say that we are condemned in Adam as we are condemned in our nature. Is that not representation?

I see Him as a God of love, mercy, justice, and compassion.

Calvinism can be thought of as love to some, justice to others. But perhaps also as love and justice which is to some condemnation and to others salvation. The love of God brings us to him, but also shows us up and reveals our hate.

 

[CSMR]

Arctic fox: good OP. I find that misunderstandings over free will generally arise from having both "free choice" and "free will" in mind and swapping them over at inappropriate moments. I am not sure why this distinction is hard to grasp.

That said even though I work with choice all the time as a student of economic theory I find it difficult to define. My thinking now is that choice is not necessary for Christianity but that the (common perhaps vague) notion of choice is not incompatible either, but if it is used, it should be distinguished from free will.

 

[CalvinistSamurai]

Awesome post. I fear that most people don't go the extra mile to not just learn what they believe, but learn what they don't believe as well. For instance, I think I've got a firm grip on why I don't believe in Catholicism, Wesleyan Theology- or Mormonism for that matter. Having an understanding of what you don't believe makes your understanding of what you do believe fuller.

I think JAL's interpretation is the biggest danger to modern theology, whether protestant or catholic. Trying to understand God through the mind of man by applying man's nature to God underwrites who God is. In the OT, God said to people that they should know Him because He says things before and they happen later (Is 41:22-23, 42:8-9, 45:21, 46:9-10). Jesus said the same of Judas(Jn 13:19, Jn 13:21, 13:26-27, Jn 6:64. Its the proof that He is God. This is definitely a double standard, in that it is something that applies to Him but not to us.


Shalom.

 

[JAL]

Hi JAL,

You posted a long and thoughtful message. However, because it contains no references to Scripture, and seems to be an entirely (or mostly) philosophical argument, I would like to side-step the discussion at this point.

Although I don't condemn all philosophical 'ramblings' about the nature of God (C.S. Lewis certainly produced some that many consider helpful), I don't consider them necessary. In fact, I prefer to stay away from Bible-informed philosophy and stick to Bible study itself.

Thanks for the reply

Exposing logical contradictions in YOUR supposedly biblical arguments proves that they are not biblical, because truth is not self-contradictory. You need to deal with that fact.

 

[JAL]

Double standards are not relativism. Relativism involves a lack of objectivity in understanding ethics whereas double standards do not involve a lack of objectivity.

Human ethics is not a concept that applies to God. If you want to have something called divine ethics you will have to invent it. The rather infinite and categorical differences between God and man disallow one from making the easy analogies between human ethical statements and divine ethical statements whatever they are.

Human ethical action is the demonstration of saving faith in Jesus Christ. Note that God does not posess saving faith in Jesus Christ.

Or thought of another way, human ethical action is the obedience of the command of God. To extend the bounds of this statement and apply it to God you would have to have a notion of God commanding himself.

(Moreover you would need to define before making arguments what double standards are. I have taken that double standards is to deny that if man should do x then God should do x, where x can be one of the statements above and has the same structure in both cases. You would need to say what statments x can be and why this results in inconsitency.)

Oh quite likely. But if one understands Adam as that person (existing or symbolic) whose nature we posess then we can easily say that we are condemned in Adam as we are condemned in our nature. Is that not representation?

Calvinism can be thought of as love to some, justice to others. But perhaps also as love and justice which is to some condemnation and to others salvation. The love of God brings us to him, but also shows us up and reveals our hate.

This is just a bunch of rambling. You need to deal with the specific objections raised in my initial post. Otherwise you are just expressing a bias. The world is full of religions because there is plenty of bias, but precious little coherence (logical consistency).

Again, if "love" and "justice" mean something different for God than what they mean to me, how can I take comfort in the hope of His love and justice? If He violates integrity such as I understand it, what hope do any of us have?

You need to deal with that problem.

 

[JAL]

The biggest self-conrtradiction in the posts recently posted against my argument is that they deem my position as philosophical.

In a philosophical debate, there are two opposing sides. So if you oppose my position, guess what? That only makes you equally philosophical.

No theologian can evade philosphy, because it is all-embracing. The most he can do is try to avoid hollow and deceptive philosophy.

 

[ArcticFox]

Exposing logical contradictions in YOUR supposedly biblical arguments proves that they are not biblical, because truth is not self-contradictory. You need to deal with that fact.

If you'd like to provide Biblical arguments from the texts of Scripture, supported by proof texts, I would be willing to address those.

Other than that, I have no need to deal with that fact.