This post is an attempt to clear up some misunderstandings about Calvinism. It is not meant to be a full-fledged, detailed explanation of Calvinism.
Why did I make this post?
Because I see ignorance about Calvinism running rampant on these forums. It seems most non-Calvinists learned what little they know about Calvinism from raging anti-Calvinists, who in turn learned what they know from other raging anti-Calvinists. This leads to strawmen, mischaracterizations, biased and misleading information, and even outright lies.
So, in no particular order, some things you should know about Calvinism.
1) Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism are two different things.
The two are not synonymous. Hyper-Calvinism is not simply "vigorous Calvinism". Instead, Hyper-Calvinism is totally different than Calvinism. Calvinists reject Hyper-Calvinism as gross error.
For example, Calvinism affirms that God uses the gospel and evangelism as the tool, the means to bring sinners to salvation. Hyper-Calvinism denies that evangelism is necessary. Thus you can see that while Calvinism acknowledges that God uses means to reach an ends, Hyper-Calvinism does not acknowledge this.
2) Calvinism is not a denomination.
Once I heard someone say "I'm not a Calvinist; I'm a Baptist". What this person has done is commit a category error. Baptist is a denomination. Calvinism is a doctrine. Baptists can be Calvinists. In fact, many denominations have members that are Calvinists.
Calvinism is simply a doctrine, like Trinitarianism is a doctrine. You never hear someone say "I'm not a Trinitarian, instead, I'm a Methodist". As if those are the same category.
3) The term "Free will" needs to be defined before any meaningful discussion can happen
Calvinists will affirm or deny "Free will" in a discussion depending on what they think you mean in that moment of time, based on the context of the current conversation. This often leads to charges of inconsistency or contradiction.
When a Calvinist affirms free will, what he is affirming is that man A) has a will B) uses that will freely (ie, without coercion or force) and C) that man is free to do whatever he wants to do. For example, if a man wants to reject Jesus, he is free to do so. If a man wants to repent of his sins and follow Jesus, he is free to do so. He can always do what he wants to do.
When a Calvinist rejects free will, what they are rejecting is specifically the notion of libertarian free will (LFW), which is an idea that teaches man is neutral by default regarding God, not inclined either for or against him. LFW teaches that man's sinful, fallen, unregenerate nature has no bearing or affect on how fallen man views God or reacts to God or responds to God. In other words, LFW teaches that man does not act in accordance with his nature. Instead, he is totally free or neutral regarding God, therefore can simply lean to the right or the left, for or against, by an act of sheer willpower. Choosing what is holy or spiritually good, according to libertarian free will, is no different or more difficult than choosing whether or not to have dessert after dinner.
Calvinists reject LFW because they believe the Bible teaches that a creature always acts in accordance with his nature (and that nature is actually by default against God and hostile to the gospel) Jesus taught this when he said the type of tree determines the type of fruit it will bear. Another example is Jer 13:23 which sarcastically asks "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil." In other words, if the Ethiopian can change the color of his skin, then you also, who are used to doing evil, can simply choose to do good, just as easily as the Ethiopian can change his own skin or the leopard can change the spots on his fur.
The point of these verses is that a creature acts in a way consistent with his nature. An apple tree will never produce oranges - only apples. The Ethiopian cannot change his skin color, and the leopard cannot change his spots. To "be different", then, requires some powerful outside force to come in and change you. Calvinists view regeneration, the new birth, being born again as this powerful, outside change. And it's done by the Holy Spirit.
An apple will tree will only start producing oranges if someone changes it into an orange tree. Calvinists understand conversion the same way. A rebel, unregenerate man is hostile to God by fallen nature, and thus will never desire God (and choose God) until something first changes him. That's what the Holy Spirit does when he causes us to be born again and removes our stony hearts and replaces them with hearts of flesh.
4) Calvinists do believe in man's responsibility.
Each man is responsible and held accountable for whether or not he believed the gospel.
"But Skala, if it's God who is in charge of changing hearts so belief in the gospel is possible, how can he hold us accountable?"
Excellent question! In fact, that's the same question the Apostle Paul knew you would ask in Romans Chapter 9. Let's see how the Apostle answered this predicted question:
Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”
V20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
What, the Apostle Paul's answer isn't good enough for you? Ah, I was worried about that. Maybe I can help with some more information.
Basically, God is responsible for our coming to faith in Jesus (ie, God gets all the credit for converting us and saving us), but he is not responsible for our unwillingness to obey the gospel. Our unwillingness to bow the knee to Christ comes from our own sinfulness. Thus its our fault, not God's, that we reject Jesus and disobey the gospel.
In other words, it's God's fault if we are saved, but it's our fault if we are not saved.
5) Calvinists are not fatalists.
Fatalism is the idea that no matter what you do, you cannot change change your fate and your fate is sealed. Rather than affirm this belief, Calvinists reject it. Instead, we affirm that God uses means to reach the ends. Fatalism is the idea that no matter what happens between points A and B in time, the outcome (C) is fixed. Some examples of fatalism would be:
A) Bob never hears the gospel. He has no clue who Jesus is. Bob grows old and dies. But because Bob was, unbeknownst to him, a part of the super secret group called "the elect", he is welcomed into heaven.
B) Jim hears the gospel and believes in it. He repents of his sins and puts his faith in Jesus. He lives a life trying to produce fruit that is pleasing to God. Jim dies, but because, unbeknownst to him, he wasn't part of the super secret group called "the elect", God rejects him and casts him into hell for all eternity!
The above are examples of fatalism. As you can see in the examples, whatever happened in temporal time didn't affect or match up with the outcome. Calvinists reject this as an impossibility. Instead, Calvinists affirm that whatever happens in time actually matches up with the outcome. This is because Calvinists believe God not only ordained the end, but also the means to that end (whereas fatalism says the means is irrelevant).
In other words, the only reason someone ever believes the gospel to begin with is because he is elect. The non-elect will never believe the gospel (because they don't want to), and the elect will always believe the gospel. Thus, the two examples I gave above (of fatalism) are impossible.
6) Calvinists don't think only Calvinists are "the elect"
The phrase "the elect" is a Biblical phrase - it's not something that Calvinists invented. The Bible speaks of Christ's bride, the church, as the elect of God, or "the chosen of God" (the word 'elect' means 'to choose'). In fact the Greek word for "church" is ekklesia which means "the called out ones" (called out from the world to God) or "the chosen ones", and ekklesia is derived from the word "eklektos" which means "to choose". This means that all born again Christians, regardless of their various beliefs and differences and disagreements about theology, are the elect. All Christians are God's elect. All Christians are God's chosen people, a royal priesthood.
For a fun study, open your electronic Bible and do a search of the New Testament for "elect" and "chosen".
7) You can be a Calvinist without ever reading a single thing John Calvin ever wrote.
This is because the doctrines that Calvinism encapsulates come from the pages of the Bible, not anything John Calvin ever produced. John Calvin did not invent the doctrines that Calvinism espouses and teaches. (In fact as you will see below, what you and I as modern Christians know as 'Calvinism' actually came much later after Calvin's death) John Calvin is simply one Bible teacher out of many that taught these doctrines throughout church history. All of the other reformers from the Reformation believed and taught the same things.
In fact, some of those Reformers taught on the doctrine of election and predestination harder and more often than John Calvin did. Such as Martin Luther himself, the father of the reformation. Here's a fantastic quote from Luther:
"If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to the free-will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright." - Martin Luther
(paraphrased: If anyone attributes any part of his salvation, even the smallest amount, to his own free will, he knows nothing of grace, and he hasn't learned correctly about Jesus Christ)
This leads me to point #8:
8) John Calvin did not invent TULIP
TULIP is an acronym for five important doctrines that Calvinism teaches. Some think it is a summary of Calvinism, but Calvinism is much more than the 5 points. It's an entire worldview about life and theology based on the idea that God is sovereign and gracious. I digress. These points are not Calvin's inventions. In fact, nobody ever sat down and said "Hey, I'm gonna create some theology in 5 distinct points!"
So how did TULIP come about? Great question!
In 1618 a group called "The Arminians" found some disagreements with reformed teaching. In fact, it was five (5) disagreements. They started a controversy, so back in those days, the proper thing to do was to hold a synod (a meeting) and discuss the issues, with a final verdict. This meeting was called the Synod of Dort. The result was called the Canons of Dort which you can read online for free:
Canons of Dort
The delegates of the Synod came from different parts of Europe: South Holland, North Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, and other places. These delegates ranged from pastors to secretaries to elders to scribes. Men of all kinds of ranks and positions and hierarchy and social status and walks of life. Even some English and Frenchmen were invited.
Anyways, in this meeting, the 5 points of Arminianism (the five disagreements the Arminians had with the Dutch reformed church) were presented. And one by one, after much discussion, they were rejected by the Synod.
In rejecting the 5 points of Arminianism, naturally, there was, as a result, five (5) responses. These five responses came to be known as TULIP. So you see, TULIP was never a positive affirmation of Calvinist doctrine. Instead, it was the result of a negative response to (and rejection of) Arminianism.
In other words, it's not the Calvinists fault that TULIP is in 5 distinct points. Five (5) is simply the number of issues that the Arminians presented to the Synod.
Oh, and John Calvin was dead already for 50 years before this synod (meeting) happened, and thus before TULIP existed.
9) Calvinists believe in unconditional election, not unconditional justification or unconditional salvation
Sometimes you'll hear anti-Calvinists, when formulating their attacks against Calvinism, say stuff like "Psh, Calvinists believe that no matter what they do, they will be saved! They can reject Jesus and live like the devil, but they'll still be saved cause they think they are special and elect!"
As you can see, not only does this person think Calvinism teaches fatalism, but they also think Calvinists believe in unconditional justification. Justification is what most modern Christians mean when they use the word "saved". "When did you get saved?" - "Oh, about 20 years ago when I put my faith in Jesus".
Justification is the doctrine of our legal standing before God and being seen by him as guiltless because Jesus is now our substitute, by faith. Thus, when God looks at us, he sees Jesus's righteousness and perfection instead of our own lack of those things.
Election is the doctrine that God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, in order to be holy and blameless before him in love. (If you'll notice, I simply quoted, verbatim, the Apostle Paul's understanding of being chosen by God. See Ephesians Chapter 1)
This election by God was free and gracious and unearned/unmerited on our part. It was completely by mercy and grace that God chose to bestow his grace and love upon us. Hence, unconditional.
But that doesn't mean Calvinists believe in unconditional justification. Justification has a condition: faith.
Rom 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
Rom 5:1 therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"
So while Calvinists believe we didn't do anything to get elected (election happened before we were born!), that doesn't mean a person can never put faith in Jesus and yet still be saved. Calvinists fully affirm that a person is justified (saved) by putting their faith in Jesus alone.
"But Skala, if a person was elected before the foundation of the world, won't he inevitably put his faith in Jesus and be justified?"
Hey, now you're catching on!
Why did I make this post?
Because I see ignorance about Calvinism running rampant on these forums. It seems most non-Calvinists learned what little they know about Calvinism from raging anti-Calvinists, who in turn learned what they know from other raging anti-Calvinists. This leads to strawmen, mischaracterizations, biased and misleading information, and even outright lies.
So, in no particular order, some things you should know about Calvinism.
1) Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism are two different things.
The two are not synonymous. Hyper-Calvinism is not simply "vigorous Calvinism". Instead, Hyper-Calvinism is totally different than Calvinism. Calvinists reject Hyper-Calvinism as gross error.
For example, Calvinism affirms that God uses the gospel and evangelism as the tool, the means to bring sinners to salvation. Hyper-Calvinism denies that evangelism is necessary. Thus you can see that while Calvinism acknowledges that God uses means to reach an ends, Hyper-Calvinism does not acknowledge this.
2) Calvinism is not a denomination.
Once I heard someone say "I'm not a Calvinist; I'm a Baptist". What this person has done is commit a category error. Baptist is a denomination. Calvinism is a doctrine. Baptists can be Calvinists. In fact, many denominations have members that are Calvinists.
Calvinism is simply a doctrine, like Trinitarianism is a doctrine. You never hear someone say "I'm not a Trinitarian, instead, I'm a Methodist". As if those are the same category.
3) The term "Free will" needs to be defined before any meaningful discussion can happen
Calvinists will affirm or deny "Free will" in a discussion depending on what they think you mean in that moment of time, based on the context of the current conversation. This often leads to charges of inconsistency or contradiction.
When a Calvinist affirms free will, what he is affirming is that man A) has a will B) uses that will freely (ie, without coercion or force) and C) that man is free to do whatever he wants to do. For example, if a man wants to reject Jesus, he is free to do so. If a man wants to repent of his sins and follow Jesus, he is free to do so. He can always do what he wants to do.
When a Calvinist rejects free will, what they are rejecting is specifically the notion of libertarian free will (LFW), which is an idea that teaches man is neutral by default regarding God, not inclined either for or against him. LFW teaches that man's sinful, fallen, unregenerate nature has no bearing or affect on how fallen man views God or reacts to God or responds to God. In other words, LFW teaches that man does not act in accordance with his nature. Instead, he is totally free or neutral regarding God, therefore can simply lean to the right or the left, for or against, by an act of sheer willpower. Choosing what is holy or spiritually good, according to libertarian free will, is no different or more difficult than choosing whether or not to have dessert after dinner.
Calvinists reject LFW because they believe the Bible teaches that a creature always acts in accordance with his nature (and that nature is actually by default against God and hostile to the gospel) Jesus taught this when he said the type of tree determines the type of fruit it will bear. Another example is Jer 13:23 which sarcastically asks "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil." In other words, if the Ethiopian can change the color of his skin, then you also, who are used to doing evil, can simply choose to do good, just as easily as the Ethiopian can change his own skin or the leopard can change the spots on his fur.
The point of these verses is that a creature acts in a way consistent with his nature. An apple tree will never produce oranges - only apples. The Ethiopian cannot change his skin color, and the leopard cannot change his spots. To "be different", then, requires some powerful outside force to come in and change you. Calvinists view regeneration, the new birth, being born again as this powerful, outside change. And it's done by the Holy Spirit.
An apple will tree will only start producing oranges if someone changes it into an orange tree. Calvinists understand conversion the same way. A rebel, unregenerate man is hostile to God by fallen nature, and thus will never desire God (and choose God) until something first changes him. That's what the Holy Spirit does when he causes us to be born again and removes our stony hearts and replaces them with hearts of flesh.
4) Calvinists do believe in man's responsibility.
Each man is responsible and held accountable for whether or not he believed the gospel.
"But Skala, if it's God who is in charge of changing hearts so belief in the gospel is possible, how can he hold us accountable?"
Excellent question! In fact, that's the same question the Apostle Paul knew you would ask in Romans Chapter 9. Let's see how the Apostle answered this predicted question:
Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”
V20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
What, the Apostle Paul's answer isn't good enough for you? Ah, I was worried about that. Maybe I can help with some more information.
Basically, God is responsible for our coming to faith in Jesus (ie, God gets all the credit for converting us and saving us), but he is not responsible for our unwillingness to obey the gospel. Our unwillingness to bow the knee to Christ comes from our own sinfulness. Thus its our fault, not God's, that we reject Jesus and disobey the gospel.
In other words, it's God's fault if we are saved, but it's our fault if we are not saved.
5) Calvinists are not fatalists.
Fatalism is the idea that no matter what you do, you cannot change change your fate and your fate is sealed. Rather than affirm this belief, Calvinists reject it. Instead, we affirm that God uses means to reach the ends. Fatalism is the idea that no matter what happens between points A and B in time, the outcome (C) is fixed. Some examples of fatalism would be:
A) Bob never hears the gospel. He has no clue who Jesus is. Bob grows old and dies. But because Bob was, unbeknownst to him, a part of the super secret group called "the elect", he is welcomed into heaven.
B) Jim hears the gospel and believes in it. He repents of his sins and puts his faith in Jesus. He lives a life trying to produce fruit that is pleasing to God. Jim dies, but because, unbeknownst to him, he wasn't part of the super secret group called "the elect", God rejects him and casts him into hell for all eternity!
The above are examples of fatalism. As you can see in the examples, whatever happened in temporal time didn't affect or match up with the outcome. Calvinists reject this as an impossibility. Instead, Calvinists affirm that whatever happens in time actually matches up with the outcome. This is because Calvinists believe God not only ordained the end, but also the means to that end (whereas fatalism says the means is irrelevant).
In other words, the only reason someone ever believes the gospel to begin with is because he is elect. The non-elect will never believe the gospel (because they don't want to), and the elect will always believe the gospel. Thus, the two examples I gave above (of fatalism) are impossible.
6) Calvinists don't think only Calvinists are "the elect"
The phrase "the elect" is a Biblical phrase - it's not something that Calvinists invented. The Bible speaks of Christ's bride, the church, as the elect of God, or "the chosen of God" (the word 'elect' means 'to choose'). In fact the Greek word for "church" is ekklesia which means "the called out ones" (called out from the world to God) or "the chosen ones", and ekklesia is derived from the word "eklektos" which means "to choose". This means that all born again Christians, regardless of their various beliefs and differences and disagreements about theology, are the elect. All Christians are God's elect. All Christians are God's chosen people, a royal priesthood.
For a fun study, open your electronic Bible and do a search of the New Testament for "elect" and "chosen".
7) You can be a Calvinist without ever reading a single thing John Calvin ever wrote.
This is because the doctrines that Calvinism encapsulates come from the pages of the Bible, not anything John Calvin ever produced. John Calvin did not invent the doctrines that Calvinism espouses and teaches. (In fact as you will see below, what you and I as modern Christians know as 'Calvinism' actually came much later after Calvin's death) John Calvin is simply one Bible teacher out of many that taught these doctrines throughout church history. All of the other reformers from the Reformation believed and taught the same things.
In fact, some of those Reformers taught on the doctrine of election and predestination harder and more often than John Calvin did. Such as Martin Luther himself, the father of the reformation. Here's a fantastic quote from Luther:
"If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to the free-will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright." - Martin Luther
(paraphrased: If anyone attributes any part of his salvation, even the smallest amount, to his own free will, he knows nothing of grace, and he hasn't learned correctly about Jesus Christ)
This leads me to point #8:
8) John Calvin did not invent TULIP
TULIP is an acronym for five important doctrines that Calvinism teaches. Some think it is a summary of Calvinism, but Calvinism is much more than the 5 points. It's an entire worldview about life and theology based on the idea that God is sovereign and gracious. I digress. These points are not Calvin's inventions. In fact, nobody ever sat down and said "Hey, I'm gonna create some theology in 5 distinct points!"
So how did TULIP come about? Great question!
In 1618 a group called "The Arminians" found some disagreements with reformed teaching. In fact, it was five (5) disagreements. They started a controversy, so back in those days, the proper thing to do was to hold a synod (a meeting) and discuss the issues, with a final verdict. This meeting was called the Synod of Dort. The result was called the Canons of Dort which you can read online for free:
Canons of Dort
The delegates of the Synod came from different parts of Europe: South Holland, North Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, and other places. These delegates ranged from pastors to secretaries to elders to scribes. Men of all kinds of ranks and positions and hierarchy and social status and walks of life. Even some English and Frenchmen were invited.
Anyways, in this meeting, the 5 points of Arminianism (the five disagreements the Arminians had with the Dutch reformed church) were presented. And one by one, after much discussion, they were rejected by the Synod.
In rejecting the 5 points of Arminianism, naturally, there was, as a result, five (5) responses. These five responses came to be known as TULIP. So you see, TULIP was never a positive affirmation of Calvinist doctrine. Instead, it was the result of a negative response to (and rejection of) Arminianism.
In other words, it's not the Calvinists fault that TULIP is in 5 distinct points. Five (5) is simply the number of issues that the Arminians presented to the Synod.
Oh, and John Calvin was dead already for 50 years before this synod (meeting) happened, and thus before TULIP existed.
9) Calvinists believe in unconditional election, not unconditional justification or unconditional salvation
Sometimes you'll hear anti-Calvinists, when formulating their attacks against Calvinism, say stuff like "Psh, Calvinists believe that no matter what they do, they will be saved! They can reject Jesus and live like the devil, but they'll still be saved cause they think they are special and elect!"
As you can see, not only does this person think Calvinism teaches fatalism, but they also think Calvinists believe in unconditional justification. Justification is what most modern Christians mean when they use the word "saved". "When did you get saved?" - "Oh, about 20 years ago when I put my faith in Jesus".
Justification is the doctrine of our legal standing before God and being seen by him as guiltless because Jesus is now our substitute, by faith. Thus, when God looks at us, he sees Jesus's righteousness and perfection instead of our own lack of those things.
Election is the doctrine that God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, in order to be holy and blameless before him in love. (If you'll notice, I simply quoted, verbatim, the Apostle Paul's understanding of being chosen by God. See Ephesians Chapter 1)
This election by God was free and gracious and unearned/unmerited on our part. It was completely by mercy and grace that God chose to bestow his grace and love upon us. Hence, unconditional.
But that doesn't mean Calvinists believe in unconditional justification. Justification has a condition: faith.
Rom 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
Rom 5:1 therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"
So while Calvinists believe we didn't do anything to get elected (election happened before we were born!), that doesn't mean a person can never put faith in Jesus and yet still be saved. Calvinists fully affirm that a person is justified (saved) by putting their faith in Jesus alone.
"But Skala, if a person was elected before the foundation of the world, won't he inevitably put his faith in Jesus and be justified?"
Hey, now you're catching on!
Calvinist damage control/PR outreach....
