• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Things non-Calvinists should know about Calvinism

Skala

I'm a Saint. Not because of me, but because of Him
Mar 15, 2011
8,964
478
✟35,369.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
FROM 1) The term free will needs to be defined to avoid confusion
======================================

An attempt to clear up some of the misunderstandings about Calvinism. It is not meant to be a detailed doctrinal defence of the Doctrines Of Grace.

1) Calvinism and Hyper Calvinism are poles apart. The terms are not to be used synonymously. A Hyper Calvinist is not just a zealous Calvinist. We both consider each other to be "mongrel" Calvinists. No man will call himself a Hyper Calvinist.

2) Yes Calvinists are split into several factions. But then so are many such doctrinal schools e.g. Dispensationalism, Church Government, Worship…do we sing only the Psalms or use hymns? Which hymns? Do we use music? Which music? Which set of texts do we base our Bible translation on? Is it the Textus Receptus that is important or the (KJV) AV? or both? etc.,

3) The term free will needs to be defined to avoid confusion. Calvinists will either affirm it or deny it, depending on what they think you mean…This sometimes leads to charges of contradictions. Consult the standard Calvinist Confessions e.g. the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 9 for a defining of terms.

4) The term free agency is not automatically the same as free will when used by a Calvinist. It is the Calvinist's preferred term to free will. Preferred so as to avoid the confusion spoken of in the above point.

5) Calvinists do believe in man's responsibility, but deny his ability to repent and believe the gospel. The two terms are not synonymous. Calvinists believe that man's inability to repent and believe are caused by his own sin ... not any positive imposition on God's part.

6) Calvinists do not believe that men are puppets or blocks of wood or robots, but responsible beings and are treated as such by God, even when fallen.

7) Calvinists are not fatalists. Calvinists believe that God has ordained the end and also the means to that end. Therefore they do believe in evangelism as the means God uses to fulfil His intention of saving the elect. It is not true to say that Calvinists believe that God saves men without the gospel. Calvinists do believe in prayer.

8) Calvinists do believe that it is the duty of men to repent and believe the gospel. This is one of our quarrels with the Hyper Calvinists.

9) Calvinists do believe that the gospel is (to quote Calvin) to be preached indiscriminately to the elect and to the reprobate (Commentary on Isaiah 54:13) This is another one of our quarrels with the Hyper Calvinists.

10) Calvinists do not limit the value or merit or worth of the blood of Christ. They do limit the intention of the blood to save any other than the elect. We are happy enough (as was John Calvin) with the statement that the blood of Christ is sufficient for the whole world but efficient only for the elect.

11) Calvinists do not believe that men are damned without any reference to their sin. God passing by and leaving certain men in their sin is not the same as God damning men by the sheer force of His decree.

12) Calvinists do not just preach on the Five Points and nothing else. At least no more so than Dispensationalists who just preach on prophecy or Pentecostals who just preach on the gifts of the Spirit etc.,

13) Calvinists do not read the Five Points into every text of scripture. Many of the major Bible commentaries, beloved and valued by all Christians e.g. Matthew Henry were written by Calvinists.

14) Calvinists do believe that men can resist the Holy Spirit. They believe that even the elect can resist the Holy Spirit, and do…but only up to the time when the Spirit regenerates their heart so that resist Him no more. The non elect effectively resist Him all their lives.

15) Calvinists do not believe that men are brought kicking and screaming irresistibly to Christ. We believe in irresistible grace. The will is not passed by in salvation. No man ever came to Christ unwillingly, or regretted that he had been brought.

16) Calvinist's do not believe that there are souls out there who want to be saved, but can't be saved because they are not of the elect.

17) Calvinists, being without access to the Lamb's Book of Life, see every man as potentially elect and preach the gospel to him.

18) Calvinists do believe in unconditional election but they do not believe in unconditional salvation. Except a man be born again, he will not enter the kingdom of Heaven (John 3:3) Except he repent, he will perish (Luke 13:3) Except he be converted etc., …all these are conditions of salvation.

19) Calvinists do believe that regeneration precedes faith in Christ. We do not confuse the term regeneration with that of justification or salvation. The Spirit of God regenerates the elect sinner enabling him to forsake the deadness of his sin and willingly embrace Christ and so be justified by faith and saved for eternity. Regeneration therefore is not synonymous with justification or salvation any more than conviction of sin is synonymous with conversion to Christ.

20) Perseverance of the saints does not mean that Calvinists believe that they must hang on for dear life without any reference to the keeping power of God. It simply means that we believe that the Christian will prove to be an overcomer in accordance with 1 John 5:4-5 etc.,

21) Some Calvinists use the phrase Particular Redemption as opposed to Limited Atonement because they can see how the General Redemptionist position may also be said to limit the atonement, although in a different way i.e. it does not set out to do all what was intended.

22) Calvinists do not believe that John Calvin is infallible…no more than Methodists believe that John Wesley is infallible or Dispensationalists allowing Schofield or John Darby the final word.

23) While Calvinists believe that saving grace and repentance are the gifts of God, given only to His elect, they do not believe that God exercises faith for them or repents for them. The elect sinner, enabled by the power of God, actually repents and believes for himself.

24) While there can be no real middle ground between the Calvinist position and that of the non Calvinist…yet most Calvinists believe that both sides really do preach the gospel. Despite our differences as to many of the details, a man who preaches that Christ died for the ungodly and that the work was sufficient to save the whosoever who will repent and believe is really preaching the gospel. We rejoice in the gospel preaching of John Wesley just as much as that of George Whitefield, although (naturally) we would hold Whitefield to be the better theologian.

25) There is a difference between a paradox and a contradiction. We know that God is sovereign, yet man is free to follow the dictates of his own will. Where the two lines meet is not for us to say. Calvinist ignorance on the matter is to be excused on the basis of Deuteronomy 29:29

26) Although Calvinists believe that even sinful acts are ordained by God (Ephesians 1:11/Proverbs 16:4) yet such makes the event certain…but not necessary. This clears God from being the author of sin. This view best explains the Cross (Acts 2:23/4:27-28/Luke 22:22) This is explained further elsewhere on this site.
 

Ormly

Senior Veteran
Dec 11, 2004
6,230
94
✟7,151.00
Faith
Christian
Can some one explain 'certain...but not necessary'. This sounds like man made logic to me. That is explain it simply.

Also if God ordains sin then how can God not be the author of what he has ordained ?

I don't get it.

He doesn't anymore than He ordains holiness however, without holiness one cannot enter His Presence because He is Holy. Whereas He desires all men to enter His Presence, holiness must sought after by him who desires God. Is desire for God, ordained?
 
Upvote 0
E

Eddie L

Guest
Can some one explain 'certain...but not necessary'. This sounds like man made logic to me. That is explain it simply.

Also if God ordains sin then how can God not be the author of what he has ordained ?

I don't get it.

The Bible is full of examples of the Father ordaining sin, but He never accomplishes this through His Spirit. He uses Satan, or a "Lying Spirit", or a "Spirit of Envy".

Even the idea of responsibility is a creation of God. The Father stands outside of it. He not only ordains the act, but by the means of the act determines who is responsible. All we have to do to see this in action is read the two accounts of David taking a census. God ordained that David would take a census because He wanted to punish Israel. He sent Satan to move David to take a census. When David did it, God held David responsible and thousands died for it.

If we find ourselves refusing to accept this, it is because we have elevated ourselves and diminished God so that we are on more equal footing. Every atom that exists is arranged by God. Every moment is His creation. Jesus is the center of His work, and we are being allowed to experience it.
 
Upvote 0

Jarrod Kruger

Newbie
Apr 2, 2012
88
1
✟22,719.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
5) Calvinists do believe in man's responsibility, but deny his ability to repent and believe the gospel. The two terms are not synonymous. Calvinists believe that man's inability to repent and believe are caused by his own sin ... not any positive imposition on God's part.
8) Calvinists do believe that it is the duty of men to repent and believe the gospel. This is one of our quarrels with the Hyper Calvinists.


This is a quote from the original post. I see a huge paradox or contradiction, which ever you choose.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ormly

Senior Veteran
Dec 11, 2004
6,230
94
✟7,151.00
Faith
Christian

What about the OT no name men who called upon the name of the Lord?
 
Upvote 0

reformed ttL

slowly becoming less newbie
Dec 21, 2009
215
19
Canada
✟15,430.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
this is a great post ,too bad many dont read it or believe what is said here as evident in many threads
 
Upvote 0

Lee52

Well-Known Member
Mar 11, 2011
1,951
79
Normal, Illinois
✟2,645.00
Faith
Wesleyan
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Question for predestination of the electists:

Does GOD control and determine whom you say this to?
"Jesus died for your sins."

If GOD does so, you are okay, no conundrum.

If GOD does not completely control whom you say that to, then you have a real conundrum that Wesleyan doctrine Christians do not have.
 
Upvote 0
E

Eddie L

Guest


We would not indiscriminantly say that.
 
Upvote 0

Ormly

Senior Veteran
Dec 11, 2004
6,230
94
✟7,151.00
Faith
Christian

If we find ourselves refusing to accept this, it is because we have elevated ourselves and diminished God
. And this is exactly what you have done.__which is all lapsarian nonsense.

God never ordained sin or people to act sinfully. God can't do that. His holiness forbids it. God is love. His Name is LOVE. LOVE doesn't act in that way. It can't act in that way.

Here is understanding: David, a man after God's own heart, by his own freewill, acted presumptuously and God slammed him for it. David attempted to elevate himself because of his flesh getting in the way of his allegiance to God. . . period!

Whenever you presume on God know that do so to support your own theological bent. Pride and a false sense of righteousness, forces one to do that from time to time which would cause Jesus to say to us as He did to the disciples: 'I have much more to say to you but you are yet unable to hear it'. It usually is the result of reading too many commentaries as if they were the scriptures that clearly give the reason why one might suppose as you are: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."
Romans 1:20-25 (KJV)

Obliviously, God did not turn David over__but he did beat him with a "whip'.
 
Upvote 0

ConsumedByHisCall

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2010
1,511
18
✟1,731.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

I'd like to unpack this point with you for a minute. Man, according to Calvinism, is born totally unable, thus when you say 'caused by his own sin" do you really mean the sin imputed by the representative head (Adam)?

If Yes, then how is that not a "positive imposition on God's part?" After all, isn't it God's choice to punish all of mankind by making them to be born in this fallen condition due to the sin of Adam? If not God's 'positive imposition,' then whose? Mother Nature's? Please explain.

If no, please explain what you mean by 'caused by his own sin?' Do you mean they don't become totally unable until they reach an age of accountability? Or actually sin themselves?
 
Upvote 0

Ormly

Senior Veteran
Dec 11, 2004
6,230
94
✟7,151.00
Faith
Christian

Love your screen "handle" Charles. . . .
 
Upvote 0
E

Eddie L

Guest

This can be answered two ways, at least from my own personal standpoint (yes, I'm Calvinist).

First, Adam is our representative, and the curse came to mankind through the cause of Adam's sin. We are born in sin as a direct result of Adam's sin, which is a sin any of us would have committed in his place.

Second, though, that's not the end of the story, because God knew full well that Adam would sin when He created the world. This means that Adam's sin is not the First Cause of our depravity. This is where we have to go farther and realize that God is not responsible for our sin simply because He is not responsible to anybody. This is where we have to accept the slap in the face to realize that God does what He does for his own purposes and we don't get to complain because the Creation belongs to God. Romans says so much on many counts. Paul addresses many causes of our condition, and he has no problem with God Himself being the First Cause.

To many Calvinists it just comes down to a mystery. That was Spurgeon's position, and I have no problem with him stopping there. He said simply that the Bible says both and so it is true.

To me, though, it comes down to how God acts within creation and outside of it. Somewhere between the plan of the Father (originating outside of creation) and the actions of man (within creation) the concept of responsibility kicks in. The ordination of the Father, the First Cause, it outside the responsibility circle. When you add the influence of spirits (including the Holy Spirit), responsibility is inside the circle. The only thing that makes this difficult to accept is that it puts the Father outside of the scope of responsibility and us inside the scope, which doesn't seem fair. I think, though, that Paul addressed the fairness question boldly enough.
 
Upvote 0

Ormly

Senior Veteran
Dec 11, 2004
6,230
94
✟7,151.00
Faith
Christian

I want to know how, by what means, you come to such a [words fail me], conclusion??

To say such a thing is to say God decreed it. That is totally without reason. God could not, would not, nor ever did such a thing at any time. It is not of His Nature to do so nor in His purposes to do so..

I hope you are speaking for yourself.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
...Second, though, that's not the end of the story, because God knew full well that Adam would sin when He created the world. This means that Adam's sin is not the First Cause of our depravity. ....

Ah but see, now you're getting into a greek brand of determinism, and by extension implying that Adam was created with a sin nature. Yes I realize you didn't directly say that, but your logic will have no other place to turn.

You're also falling into the same trap as the Open Theists. They believe that it is impossible for God to know about a future free agency decision unless He Himself made it. Since they affirm LFW, they deny exhaustive foreknowledge. And since determinists calvinists also affirm this premise, but embrace exhaustive foreknowledge, they deny LFW.

I would argue, respectfully, that both are wrong that knowing means causing.
 
Upvote 0
E

Eddie L

Guest
Ah but see, now you're getting into a greek brand of determinism, and by extension implying that Adam was created with a sin nature. Yes I realize you didn't directly say that, but your logic will have no other place to turn.

I don't think so. I'm just saying that Adam wasn't God. Adam's nature was not corrupt before the Fall, but it was not autonomously good, either. Righteousness is not merely the absence of guilt. Guilt is the inevitable result of the absence of God.


I could say that you are falling into the same trap as Open Theists in that they insist that if God can prevent sin and doesn't that He is responsible for it.

I would argue, respectfully, that both are wrong that knowing means causing.

And I would say, also respectfully, that both are wrong that cause means responsible.
 
Upvote 0

Ormly

Senior Veteran
Dec 11, 2004
6,230
94
✟7,151.00
Faith
Christian
I could say that you are falling into the same trap as Open Theists in that they insist that if God can prevent sin and doesn't that He is responsible for it.

That's not true. In other words, it a lie. Though God was NOT responsible for sin He nevertheless took responsibility for it. After all, it was His creation that sinned. Enter Jesus Christ, our way out of the dilemma. __and that was all part of plan A.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,700
1,899
✟970,456.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
For me the most discouraging idea of Calvinism is: “The Spirit of God regenerates the elect sinner enabling him to forsake the deadness of his sin and willingly embrace Christ and so be justified by faith and saved for eternity.” Yet it would be no more difficult for God to “regenerate” everyone in the same way?

How is that not putting extreme limits on the saving Love of God?

Does it not appear that God is being a hypocrite by telling us not to discriminate in anyway and yet God discriminates between the elect and non-elect?
 
Upvote 0