The History of Calvinism -- Church Councils -- According to the Bible

Mountainmanbob

Goat Whisperer
Site Supporter
Sep 6, 2016
15,961
10,817
73
92040
✟1,096,353.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

Mountainmanbob

Goat Whisperer
Site Supporter
Sep 6, 2016
15,961
10,817
73
92040
✟1,096,353.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Thanks Bob - interesting videos - although I am not sure how they relate to Traditional Theology, Reformed Theology yes... but I may be wrong.

I was hoping that I posted in the right place. Trying to stay trouble free here.

If not maybe the mods could kindly move?

M-Bob
 
Upvote 0

rockytopva

Love to pray! :)
Site Supporter
Mar 6, 2011
20,046
7,673
.
Visit site
✟1,062,417.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
I was hoping that I posted in the right place. Trying to stay trouble free here.

If not maybe the mods could kindly move?

M-Bob

This is not a bad place for this thread. I believe that Calvinism is part of the whole Christian church.... There are also a lot of non-Calvinist here as well. No harm though in defending or explaining your doctrine or the way you believe.
 
Upvote 0

gordonhooker

Franciscan tssf
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2012
1,883
1,045
Wellington Point, QLD
Visit site
✟274,602.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I was hoping that I posted in the right place. Trying to stay trouble free here.

If not maybe the mods could kindly move?

M-Bob

I am listening to part 1 while I code java at work - some things said may upset a few here... I don't agree with some of what I have heard but I find it interesting...
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmanbob

Goat Whisperer
Site Supporter
Sep 6, 2016
15,961
10,817
73
92040
✟1,096,353.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't agree with some of what I have heard but I find it interesting...

I've listened to the three parts several times over the last six years or so. I never knew much about Church history and find these teachings very informative. Glad you are enjoying.


M-Bob
 
  • Like
Reactions: gordonhooker
Upvote 0

gordonhooker

Franciscan tssf
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2012
1,883
1,045
Wellington Point, QLD
Visit site
✟274,602.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I've listened to the three parts several times over the last six years or so. I never knew much about Church history and find these teachings very informative. Glad you are enjoying.


M-Bob

They talk about one my favourite Early Church theologians Saint Augustine - I have read much of Augustine's teachings especially his writing on the Trinity - the one thing I don't agree with though was his doctrine of Original Sin which Calvinism refers to as Total Depravity so I would be in the Arminius camp on that debate. Learning heaps thanks Bob.
 
Upvote 0

gordonhooker

Franciscan tssf
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2012
1,883
1,045
Wellington Point, QLD
Visit site
✟274,602.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I have watched 2 so far and I have to say in the 2nd part these guys seem to cherry-pick and twist the meaning of some scripture to fit their determination of the elect, ignoring a plethora of references that contradict them. In my humble opinion - great for getting an idea of what our Calvinist brothers and sisters believe but not something I would embrace given my Anglo-Catholic upbringing.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: mark46
Upvote 0

gordonhooker

Franciscan tssf
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2012
1,883
1,045
Wellington Point, QLD
Visit site
✟274,602.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
After 3.5 hours I had enough of the Calvinism v. Arminianism. The first video was great the second one laboured the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism with a little Roman Catholic bashing mixed in. The was another 50 minute part 3 I may listen to that one when I get past this headache I got listening for the last 2.5 hours. :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,455
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,775.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I was hoping that I posted in the right place. Trying to stay trouble free here.

If not maybe the mods could kindly move?

M-Bob

The easiest way to answer is to quote from the SOP the definition of Traditional Christians and see if you agree? I don't know enough to answer for you.

From the SOP:

Traditional Christians hold to the traditional beliefs and customs of the early church that Jesus Christ established and believe they should be acknowledged and used in the development of the Church today. Traditional Christians believe that the Church and associated Tradition - especially from the Apostolic / early Church - guide us even today. These traditions include sources such as church councils and creeds, writings of the early Church Fathers, testimony of the Lives of the Saints, classic confessions of the faith, etc. Many traditional Christians believe that each Christian is involved in a movement toward God, commonly known as theosis or sanctification. Traditional Christians recognize a variety of sacraments and sacramental acts including, but not limited to; Baptism, Holy Communion (Eucharist), Confession and Absolution, Chrismation (confirmation) etc., and consider them to be additional means whereby God imparts His grace on those who have faith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: All4Christ
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mountainmanbob

Goat Whisperer
Site Supporter
Sep 6, 2016
15,961
10,817
73
92040
✟1,096,353.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
from gotquestions.org



Question: "Monergism vs. synergism—which view is correct?"

Answer:
This topic has been hotly debated within the church for centuries. It is not exaggerating to say that this debate concerns the very heart of the gospel itself. First, let us define the two terms. When we talk about monergism vs. synergism, theologically speaking, we’re talking about who brings about our salvation. Monergism, which comes from a compound Greek word that means “to work alone,” is the view that God alone effects our salvation. This view is held primarily by Calvinistic and Reformed traditions and is closely tied to what is known as the “doctrines of grace.” Synergism, which also comes from a compound Greek word meaning “to work together,” is the view that God works together with us in effecting salvation. While monergism is closely associated with John Calvin, synergism is associated with Jacob Arminius, and his views have greatly shaped the modern evangelical landscape. Calvin and Arminius aren’t the creators of these views, but are the best-known proponents of Calvinism and Arminianism.

These two views were heavily debated in the early 17th century when followers of Arminius published The Five Articles of the Remonstrance (FAR), a document stating where their theology differed from that of Calvin and his followers. The pivotal point in this debate is between the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election vs. the Arminian doctrine of conditional election. If one believes election is unconditional, then one will tend toward a monergistic view of salvation. Conversely, if one holds to a view that election is based on God’s foreknowledge of who would believe in Him, then one tends toward the synergistic view.

The view of unconditional election is stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith: “Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace”(WCF III.5, emphasis added). As we can see, unconditional election teaches that God’s choice of the elect is based on the good pleasure of His will and nothing more. Furthermore, His choice in election is not based on His foreseeing a person’s faith or any good works or that person's persevering in either faith or good works.

Two classic biblical passages support this doctrine. The first is Ephesians 1:4-5, “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will.” According to this passage, we were chosen by God to be in Christ—holy and blameless—before the world was created, and this choice was based on the “purpose of God’s will.” The other passage is Romans 9:16, “It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.” God’s choice is not dependent on anything we do or believe in, but is made solely at the discretion of God’s mercy.

The essence of Calvinism, and the monergistic argument, is that God is in the business of actually saving people and not merely making them savable. Because all people are born in sin and because of their fallen nature (total depravity), they will always reject God; therefore, God must act in saving the elect without any pre-condition on their part such as faith. In order to bestow the blessings of salvation and eternal life to the elect, God must first atone for their sins (limited atonement). This grace and salvation must then be applied to the elect, and thus the Holy Spirit applies the effects of salvation to the elect by regenerating their spirits and drawing them into salvation (irresistible grace). Finally, those whom God has saved He will preserve to the end (perseverance of the saints). From beginning to end, salvation (in all its aspects) is a work of God and God alone—monergism! The point is that actual people are being saved—the elect. Consider Romans 8:28-30. In that passage we see that there is a group of people whom God “calls according to his purpose.” These people are identified as “those who love God.” These people are also those who in vv. 29-30 are foreknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified. God is the one who is moving this group of people (those who love God, the elect) from foreknowledge to glorification, and none are lost along the way.

In support of the synergistic argument, let’s turn our attention to the Five Articles of the Remonstrance: “That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: ‘He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,’ and according to other passages of Scripture also” (FAR, Article I, emphasis added). Here we see that salvation is conditional upon the faith and perseverance of the individual. What conditional election does is place the determining factor of our salvation squarely upon us, on our ability to choose Jesus and remain in Him. Now Arminians will claim that our ability to choose Jesus is the result of a universal grace that God first gives to all people that offsets the effects of the fall and allows man to choose to accept or reject Christ. In other words, God must do something to even make the choice of salvation possible, but in the end it is our choice which saves us. The Scripture reference that Article I supplies certainly affirms that those who believe have eternal life and that those who reject do not have eternal life, so it would seem there is some scriptural support for this doctrine. Thus, the synergistic argument claims that God makes salvation possible, but it is our choice that makes salvation actual.

So, while monergism claims that God is both a necessary and sufficient condition for our salvation, synergism will agree that God is a necessary condition, but will deny His sufficiency. Our free will plus God’s activity is what makes it sufficient. Logically speaking, we should be able to see the flaw in the synergistic argument—that God doesn’t actually save anyone. This places the responsibility for salvation on us, for it is we who have to make salvation real by placing our faith in Christ. If God doesn’t actually save anyone, then it is possible that no one will be saved. If God doesn’t actually save anyone, how do we explain such strong passages as Romans 8:28-30? All of the Greek verbs in that passage are aorist/indicative, meaning that the action described therein is complete; there is no potentiality implied in that passage. From God’s perspective, salvation has been effected. Further, Article IV of the Remonstrance says the grace of God is resistible, and Article V asserts that those who have chosen the grace of God can also fall from that grace and “return to this present evil world” becoming “devoid of grace.” This view contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture in regard to the eternal security of the believer.

If that is the case, how then do we respond to the biblical support for conditional election (cf. John 3:36)? There is no denying that faith is necessary to make salvation a "done deal" in our lives, but where does faith fall in the order of salvation (Ordo Salutis)? Again, if we consider Romans 8:29-30, we see a logical progression of salvation. Justification, which is typically in view when considering salvation by faith, is fourth on that list preceded by foreknowledge, predestination, and calling. Now calling can be broken down into the following: regeneration, evangelism, faith and repentance. In other words, the "call" (referred to as “effectual calling” by Reformed theologians) first must involve being born again by the power of the Holy Spirit (John 3:3). Next comes the preaching of the gospel (Romans 10:14-17), followed by faith and repentance. However, before any of that can take place, it must be logically preceded by foreknowledge and predestination.

This brings us to the question of foreknowledge. Arminians will claim that foreknowledge refers to God foreknowing the faith of the elect. If that is the case, then God’s electing us is no longer based on the “good purpose of his will,” but rather on our being able to choose Him, despite our fallen condition which, according to Romans 8:7 is hostile to God and incapable of doing so. The Arminian view of foreknowledge also contradicts the clear teaching of the passages mentioned above in support of unconditional election (Ephesians 1:4-5 and Romans 9:16). This view essentially robs God of His sovereignty and places the responsibility for salvation squarely on the shoulders of creatures who are wholly incapable of saving themselves.

In conclusion, the weight of the logical evidence and the weight of the biblical evidence supports the monergistic view of salvation—God is the author and perfector of our salvation (Hebrews 12:2). He who began a good work in us will perfect it on the day of Christ Jesus (Philippians 1:6). Monergism not only has a profound impact on how one views salvation, but on evangelism as well. If salvation is solely based on God’s saving grace, then there is no room for us to boast, and all the glory goes to Him (Ephesians 2:8-9). In addition, if God actually saves people, then our evangelistic efforts must bear fruit because God has promised to save the elect. Monergism equals greater glory to God!

Recommended Resource: Chosen But Free, revised edition: A Balanced View of God's Sovereignty and Free Will by Norm Geisler and The Potter's Freedom by James White
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,056
3,765
✟289,914.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I skimmed through portions of the video series (sorry I'm not watching the whole 5 or 6 hour presentation) and from what I see the only history it covers before the reformation is biblical passages, Athanasius, Council of Nicaea and Augustine. I couldn't consider any of these people or events Calvinistic in nature and I am not surprised that the focus of the series is on biblical exposition and post reformation movements and ideas since that is the only sources Calvinists can appeal to.

I would be more interested with Calvinists dealing with the seven ecumenical councils, Maximos the Confessor and other aspects of the Church's history which don't exactly match modern reformed religion.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,147,708.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I skimmed through portions of the video series (sorry I'm not watching the whole 5 or 6 hour presentation) and from what I see the only history it covers before the reformation is biblical passages, Athanasius, Council of Nicaea and Augustine. I couldn't consider any of these people or events Calvinistic in nature and I am not surprised that the focus of the series is on biblical exposition and post reformation movements and ideas since that is the only sources Calvinists can appeal to.

I would be more interested with Calvinists dealing with the seven ecumenical councils, Maximos the Confessor and other aspects of the Church's history which don't exactly match modern reformed religion.
I'm not about to watch hours of this kind of thing either, particularly since I'm from the opposite end of the Reformed movement from these folks.

The Reformed faith includes more than just predestination. It includes all aspects of theology. For that reason it makes sense to include high points in the formation of theology. Surely Athanasius, Nicea and Augustine would qualify as key contributors. In particular, Reformed theology considers the Trinity and Incarnation to be foundations of theology. In a video series like that it's not possible to include the whole history, but surely Athanasius and Nicea would be reasonable sources for that. Augustine would qualify both because of his contribution to the Trinity and his views on grace and predestination.

Reformed theology considers Scripture to be the ultimate authority, but it certainly pays attention to historical Christian theology. Calvin believed that theology had slowly departed from the true path, so that theologians such as those cited were more reliable than medieval theology. However the Institutes (Calvin's major work) is full of citations from theologians from all periods. It's weak on the East for obvious reasons. Communications was a problem.

Because Reformed theology thinks tradition can and has made mistakes, previous theologians can be used only with care. But still, we most certainly don't start from scratch. Don't mistake Reformed theology for something like the Restoration (which claimed to have started from scratch with Scripture -- though it's not clear that they actually did that). Remember, the Reformers stuck with basic traditional ideas about Jesus and God.

I'm not going to defend the specific evaluations made in these videos, both because I haven't watched them and because from their web site it's likely that I disagree with many of their views.

It's pretty typical for Protestants to consider only the 4 councils reliable. Indeed one view is that it's not the councils themselves but a specific set of confessions, e.g. the Apostles Creed (which isn't conciliar), Nicene Creed, Definition of Chalcedon, and Athanasian Creed (though it's controversial). But a video series has to be selective anyway, so it's not clear how significant the omission is. Anyone looking in a serious way at Christology would have to go beyond the first 4 councils, even if they didn't approve of everything they did.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: ~Anastasia~
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,056
3,765
✟289,914.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I'm not about to watch hours of this kind of thing either, particularly since I'm from the opposite end of the Reformed movement from these folks.

The Reformed faith includes more than just predestination. It includes all aspects of theology. For that reason it makes sense to include high points in the formation of theology. Surely Athanasius, Nicea and Augustine would qualify as key contributors. In particular, Reformed theology considers the Trinity and Incarnation to be foundations of theology. In a video series like that it's not possible to include the whole history, but surely Athanasius and Nicea would be reasonable sources for that. Augustine would qualify both because of his contribution to the Trinity and his views on grace and predestination.

Reformed theology considers Scripture to be the ultimate authority, but it certainly pays attention to historical Christian theology. Calvin believed that theology had slowly departed from the true path, so that theologians such as those cited were more reliable than medieval theology. However the Institutes (Calvin's major work) is full of citations from theologians from all periods. It's weak on the East for obvious reasons. Communications was a problem.

Because Reformed theology thinks tradition can and has made mistakes, previous theologians can be used only with care. But still, we most certainly don't start from scratch. Don't mistake Reformed theology for something like the Restoration (which claimed to have started from scratch with Scripture -- though it's not clear that they actually did that). Remember, the Reformers stuck with basic traditional ideas about Jesus and God.

I'm not going to defend the specific evaluations made in these videos, both because I haven't watched them and because from their web site it's likely that I disagree with many of their views.

It's pretty typical for Protestants to consider only the 4 councils reliable. Indeed one view is that it's not the councils themselves but a specific set of confessions, e.g. the Apostles Creed (which isn't conciliar), Nicene Creed, Definition of Chalcedon, and Athanasian Creed (though it's controversial). But a video series has to be selective anyway, so it's not clear how significant the omission is. Anyone looking in a serious way at Christology would have to go beyond the first 4 councils, even if they didn't approve of everything they did.

It's not that I think they can't claim a theological heritage in Athanasius or Augustine (though I do not think either were part of the reformed Church nor had any concept of the Church like the reformed today have) its that those are basically the only two pre-reformation and post biblical figures they appeal to. I would prefer a more in depth engagement with the Patristic and pre-reformation eras from a reformed perspective which I suspect would be hard since the Calvinist understanding of Christianity differs radically in many ways from the faith before it.

For instance, the schism between East and West has significant consequences in that (if the Reformed want to claim continuity) they basically have to affirm that they at one point affirmed the power of the Pope against Eastern challenges to it and the Pope's power in the council of Florence. What does it mean to be continuous with the Western Church but not the Eastern Church? Do the Reformed accept if they believe themselves to be in continuity with what came before them, that they as a Church supported the power of the Pope at one point?
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,147,708.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Reformed Christians didn't make a specific decision to be Western. Rather, the movement started in the West. I would say we should pay attention to all historical perspectives, but realistically it tends to be other Western traditions that we interact with.

In a few respects modern Reformed, as mainline Protestantism as a whole, has moved away from the Augustinian perspective, closer to the East. I'm thinking specifically of the atonement. Even in Calvin himself, his primary account of the atonement is not, as commonly claimed, penal substitution, but uses a wider variety of early models.

In other respects, however, modern Reformed thought has diverged further from the East. We are strongly influenced by modern critical study of Jesus, and by recent appreciation of the differences between Biblical concepts and how those concepts were translated into the predominant Greek culture, though liberal and conservative Reformed are dealing differently with these trends. As far as I know, these perspectives now appear in a number of Western traditions, but not much in the East. Current reassessment of gender and sexual issues also appears to be happening primarily in the West. The Reformed tradition is part of that, though of course our liberal and conservative wings are reacting differently here, too.

The video, however, seems to be from a conservative Reformed group. They are typically more Calvinist than Calvin.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Virgil the Roman

Young Fogey & Monarchist-Distributist . . .
Jan 14, 2006
11,413
1,299
Kentucky
✟64,604.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I find it ironic that the 7 Ecumenical councils 'make mistakes' when they disagree with Calvin (& Calvinism) preconceived notions about how the Early Church ought to have been. Well, I'll take the 1st millennium Church and St John Cassian over a one-track focus on predestination and mistaken Augustinian thought any day.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,455
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,775.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I must have missed this one before.

It's informative as far as some "sides" to the question, but I find that I don't fully agree with either (or at least not with the way they are presented) so I think at the very least there is another way to characterize certain points in synergism. Because we have great differences with monergism as detailed here.

And I think the discussion is ok here as far as comparing and contrasting. There are members in Traditional Theology from different opinions on these topics.

Though I'm also inclined to agree that anytime anyone thinks they are now more "enlightened" in believing a doctrine that dismisses the Early Church Fathers as having been simply wrong - I'm putting my faith in the Holy Spirit having led the early Church than any man's intellectual exercises many centuries later.


But there are lots of points in here that could be discussed. If it continues and I have more time, I'll try to keep up. This one interests me and I'm still trying to fully understand Calvinism because it's often clear to me that I must not yet. Because it just doesn't make sense to me, and I know too many people that I respect who do believe it, so there must be a way that it makes sense. Though I can't fully agree, I'd like to understand. :)

from gotquestions.org



Question: "Monergism vs. synergism—which view is correct?"

Answer:
This topic has been hotly debated within the church for centuries. It is not exaggerating to say that this debate concerns the very heart of the gospel itself. First, let us define the two terms. When we talk about monergism vs. synergism, theologically speaking, we’re talking about who brings about our salvation. Monergism, which comes from a compound Greek word that means “to work alone,” is the view that God alone effects our salvation. This view is held primarily by Calvinistic and Reformed traditions and is closely tied to what is known as the “doctrines of grace.” Synergism, which also comes from a compound Greek word meaning “to work together,” is the view that God works together with us in effecting salvation. While monergism is closely associated with John Calvin, synergism is associated with Jacob Arminius, and his views have greatly shaped the modern evangelical landscape. Calvin and Arminius aren’t the creators of these views, but are the best-known proponents of Calvinism and Arminianism.

These two views were heavily debated in the early 17th century when followers of Arminius published The Five Articles of the Remonstrance (FAR), a document stating where their theology differed from that of Calvin and his followers. The pivotal point in this debate is between the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election vs. the Arminian doctrine of conditional election. If one believes election is unconditional, then one will tend toward a monergistic view of salvation. Conversely, if one holds to a view that election is based on God’s foreknowledge of who would believe in Him, then one tends toward the synergistic view.

The view of unconditional election is stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith: “Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace”(WCF III.5, emphasis added). As we can see, unconditional election teaches that God’s choice of the elect is based on the good pleasure of His will and nothing more. Furthermore, His choice in election is not based on His foreseeing a person’s faith or any good works or that person's persevering in either faith or good works.

Two classic biblical passages support this doctrine. The first is Ephesians 1:4-5, “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will.” According to this passage, we were chosen by God to be in Christ—holy and blameless—before the world was created, and this choice was based on the “purpose of God’s will.” The other passage is Romans 9:16, “It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.” God’s choice is not dependent on anything we do or believe in, but is made solely at the discretion of God’s mercy.

The essence of Calvinism, and the monergistic argument, is that God is in the business of actually saving people and not merely making them savable. Because all people are born in sin and because of their fallen nature (total depravity), they will always reject God; therefore, God must act in saving the elect without any pre-condition on their part such as faith. In order to bestow the blessings of salvation and eternal life to the elect, God must first atone for their sins (limited atonement). This grace and salvation must then be applied to the elect, and thus the Holy Spirit applies the effects of salvation to the elect by regenerating their spirits and drawing them into salvation (irresistible grace). Finally, those whom God has saved He will preserve to the end (perseverance of the saints). From beginning to end, salvation (in all its aspects) is a work of God and God alone—monergism! The point is that actual people are being saved—the elect. Consider Romans 8:28-30. In that passage we see that there is a group of people whom God “calls according to his purpose.” These people are identified as “those who love God.” These people are also those who in vv. 29-30 are foreknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified. God is the one who is moving this group of people (those who love God, the elect) from foreknowledge to glorification, and none are lost along the way.

In support of the synergistic argument, let’s turn our attention to the Five Articles of the Remonstrance: “That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: ‘He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,’ and according to other passages of Scripture also” (FAR, Article I, emphasis added). Here we see that salvation is conditional upon the faith and perseverance of the individual. What conditional election does is place the determining factor of our salvation squarely upon us, on our ability to choose Jesus and remain in Him. Now Arminians will claim that our ability to choose Jesus is the result of a universal grace that God first gives to all people that offsets the effects of the fall and allows man to choose to accept or reject Christ. In other words, God must do something to even make the choice of salvation possible, but in the end it is our choice which saves us. The Scripture reference that Article I supplies certainly affirms that those who believe have eternal life and that those who reject do not have eternal life, so it would seem there is some scriptural support for this doctrine. Thus, the synergistic argument claims that God makes salvation possible, but it is our choice that makes salvation actual.

So, while monergism claims that God is both a necessary and sufficient condition for our salvation, synergism will agree that God is a necessary condition, but will deny His sufficiency. Our free will plus God’s activity is what makes it sufficient. Logically speaking, we should be able to see the flaw in the synergistic argument—that God doesn’t actually save anyone. This places the responsibility for salvation on us, for it is we who have to make salvation real by placing our faith in Christ. If God doesn’t actually save anyone, then it is possible that no one will be saved. If God doesn’t actually save anyone, how do we explain such strong passages as Romans 8:28-30? All of the Greek verbs in that passage are aorist/indicative, meaning that the action described therein is complete; there is no potentiality implied in that passage. From God’s perspective, salvation has been effected. Further, Article IV of the Remonstrance says the grace of God is resistible, and Article V asserts that those who have chosen the grace of God can also fall from that grace and “return to this present evil world” becoming “devoid of grace.” This view contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture in regard to the eternal security of the believer.

If that is the case, how then do we respond to the biblical support for conditional election (cf. John 3:36)? There is no denying that faith is necessary to make salvation a "done deal" in our lives, but where does faith fall in the order of salvation (Ordo Salutis)? Again, if we consider Romans 8:29-30, we see a logical progression of salvation. Justification, which is typically in view when considering salvation by faith, is fourth on that list preceded by foreknowledge, predestination, and calling. Now calling can be broken down into the following: regeneration, evangelism, faith and repentance. In other words, the "call" (referred to as “effectual calling” by Reformed theologians) first must involve being born again by the power of the Holy Spirit (John 3:3). Next comes the preaching of the gospel (Romans 10:14-17), followed by faith and repentance. However, before any of that can take place, it must be logically preceded by foreknowledge and predestination.

This brings us to the question of foreknowledge. Arminians will claim that foreknowledge refers to God foreknowing the faith of the elect. If that is the case, then God’s electing us is no longer based on the “good purpose of his will,” but rather on our being able to choose Him, despite our fallen condition which, according to Romans 8:7 is hostile to God and incapable of doing so. The Arminian view of foreknowledge also contradicts the clear teaching of the passages mentioned above in support of unconditional election (Ephesians 1:4-5 and Romans 9:16). This view essentially robs God of His sovereignty and places the responsibility for salvation squarely on the shoulders of creatures who are wholly incapable of saving themselves.

In conclusion, the weight of the logical evidence and the weight of the biblical evidence supports the monergistic view of salvation—God is the author and perfector of our salvation (Hebrews 12:2). He who began a good work in us will perfect it on the day of Christ Jesus (Philippians 1:6). Monergism not only has a profound impact on how one views salvation, but on evangelism as well. If salvation is solely based on God’s saving grace, then there is no room for us to boast, and all the glory goes to Him (Ephesians 2:8-9). In addition, if God actually saves people, then our evangelistic efforts must bear fruit because God has promised to save the elect. Monergism equals greater glory to God!

Recommended Resource: Chosen But Free, revised edition: A Balanced View of God's Sovereignty and Free Will by Norm Geisler and The Potter's Freedom by James White
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,147,708.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I find it ironic that the 7 Ecumenical councils 'make mistakes' when they disagree with Calvin (& Calvinism) preconceived notions about how the Early Church ought to have been. Well, I'll take the 1st millennium Church and St John Cassian over a one-track focus on predestination and mistaken Augustinian thought any day.
The one-track focus on predestination is to a large extent a misperception. Because it's the area most non-Reformed disagree with most, it's taken to characterize Reformed thought. You can see that in the Reformed group here, where TULIP is taken as a definition of Reformed.

Augustinian yes, but remember that Reformed thought developed in the West. It's only recently that parts of the West have started to come to grips with just how dependent we are upon Augustine. We actually started to grapple with the neo-Platonic background of Christian thought before the Augustinian background, in my view.

However predestination isn't a doctrine on which Calvin particularly focused. It's hard for me to assess conservative Reformed thought because I'm not part of that group. But looking at their non-controversial writings, there's a bit more emphasis on God's sovereignty than in other groups, but still not a "one-track focus." Of course the modern half (and it does seem to be at least half, at least in the first world) of the movement is not focused on it at all, and indeed has serious qualms about it.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,062
4,740
✟836,995.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I think that part of my problem in understanding modern day Calvinism is that there are several different views. When I read Calvin, I just don't see the double predetermines of many modern Calvinists.

Hedrick has often helped in understanding Calvin in ways that make more sense.
=======
for if we are to consider double predeterminism as the core of Calvinism, then I might be adamant as Wesley, when he said that he stands firm in opposition to that doctrine.

I must have missed this one before.

It's informative as far as some "sides" to the question, but I find that I don't fully agree with either (or at least not with the way they are presented) so I think at the very least there is another way to characterize certain points in synergism. Because we have great differences with monergism as detailed here.

And I think the discussion is ok here as far as comparing and contrasting. There are members in Traditional Theology from different opinions on these topics.

Though I'm also inclined to agree that anytime anyone thinks they are now more "enlightened" in believing a doctrine that dismisses the Early Church Fathers as having been simply wrong - I'm putting my faith in the Holy Spirit having led the early Church than any man's intellectual exercises many centuries later.


But there are lots of points in here that could be discussed. If it continues and I have more time, I'll try to keep up. This one interests me and I'm still trying to fully understand Calvinism because it's often clear to me that I must not yet. Because it just doesn't make sense to me, and I know too many people that I respect who do believe it, so there must be a way that it makes sense. Though I can't fully agree, I'd like to understand. :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums