Understanding Calvinism

Walter Kovacs said:

To understand Calvinism, it's best to have a pretty good idea of the ancient Greek way of thinking, particularly their idea of God, as well as Stoicism, specifically determinism.

Click to expand...

what as opposed to indeterminism and Libertarian Free will theories ?

scripture is sufficient , The Apostles and Prophets didn't get their doctrine of Grace , election and Predestination from Philosophers .

cygnusx1 said:

what as opposed to indeterminism and Libertarian Free will theories ?

scripture is sufficient , The Apostles and Prophets didn't get their doctrine of Grace , election and Predestination from Philosophers .

Click to expand...

I'm afraid this has nothing to do with what I posted.

Pinkman said:

Was A W Pink a hyper Calvinist ?

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/147a-TheBannerTruthvsCalvinism.pdf

It seems The Banner of Truth is a non-hyper version of Calvinism taking a swipe at the hyper Calvinist position by deleting some of Pink's book. The part 'The Banner Muzzles A. W. Pink '

Quote from the web page -
The following from the chapter on reprobation is an
example of what was censored; see how Pink
pointed the finger right at The Banner of Truth:

The thoughtful reader will naturally ask,
And what of those who were not "ordained
to eternal life?" The answer which is
usually returned to this question, even by
those who profess to believe what the
Scriptures teach concerning God’s
sovereignty, is, that God passes by the
non-elect, leaves them alone to go their
own way, and in the end casts them into
the Lake of Fire because they refused His
way, and rejected the Saviour of His
providing. But this is only part of the truth;
the other part–that which is most offensive
to the carnal mind–is either ignored or
denied. . . . He loves one and hates
another. He exercises mercy toward some
and hardens others, without reference to
anything save


I have alway thought of Pink as a hyper Calvinist which I have maintained on this thread is the simplest 'ism' to understand.

I am confused by those who argue against hyper Calvinism and then quote pink to support their case

Click to expand...

what makes you imagine Pink was a Hyper C ? He wrote against them !

Walter Kovacs said:

To understand Calvinism, it's best to have a pretty good idea of the ancient Greek way of thinking, particularly their idea of God, as well as Stoicism, specifically determinism.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't confuse Calvinism with secular philosophy, understanding Greek thinking is helpful for all students of the Bible though. There is a difference between Christian determinism and non-Christian determinism, not to mention most of us wearing the Calvinist label are "biblical" compatibilists (sometimes called "soft determinism"), which is not to be confused with hard determinism. Sometimes we compatibilists can come off as hard determinists or as libertarian free willers.

compatibilism

determinism-causal

incompatibilism-theories/

freewill/

I wouldn't confuse Calvinism with secular philosophy, understanding Greek thinking is helpful for all students of the Bible though.

Click to expand...

Calvinism depends hevaily on two things borrowed from the Greek way of thinking:

The concept of God as primarily a being of power (irristible grace comes from here, as well as the 'failed God' objections, ie that if God doesn't save deterministically, He is not all-powerful).

The concept of theological determinism, which is neither a product of Hebrew nor early Christian though. Calvins early fascination with the Stoics contributes a lot to this.

There is a difference between Christian determinism and non-Christian determinism, not to mention most of us wearing the Calvinist label are "biblical" compatibilists (sometimes called "soft determinism"), which is not to be confused with hard determinism. Sometimes we compatibilists can come off as hard determinists or as libertarian free willers.

Click to expand...

Compatiblism is still determinism, except that humans are now 'somehow' responsible for their actions, again, and idea I don't find in Scripture. It's not that God is in absolute control and we're just somehow responsible, that's just silly. God is sovereign and we are responsible precisely because we're free (well, as free as we can be). Compatibalism simply does not fit the Biblical picture.

Pinkman said:

Was A W Pink a hyper Calvinist ?

Click to expand...

I've had the same question for years (concerning him and John Gill), either way though, I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water, and very few if any of us are totally consistent throughout our entire lives, nor do we always communicate our intended meaning in ways that cannot be misunderstood. I suppose what I am saying is, I tend to cut people some slack. There is much confusion I think, as to just what a hyper-Calvinist actually is. From what little I understand, there are a couple of tendencies hypers have in common. They lean more towards a hard determinism, which they would do consider fatalism, but ends up that way by way of implications. For example, they would admit, discourage, teach that evangelism is moreorless a waste of time. They might talk negatively about prayer, and they tend to deny the "general call" to salvation.

Dr. C. Matthew McMahon of "A Puritan's Mind" website has written a good article on hyper-Calvinism here: All house and no doors: A Brief Critique of the False Teachings of Hyper-Calvinism

Walter Kovacs said:

Calvinism depends hevaily on two things borrowed from the Greek way of thinking:

The concept of God as primarily a being of power (irristible grace comes from here, as well as the 'failed God' objections, ie that if God doesn't save deterministically, He is not all-powerful).

Click to expand...

Does the Bible not teach that God is almighty, all-powerful? Yeah, that would make Him a being of not just power but supreme power over all. Irrisistable grace comes from such verses as the one that tells us God is greater than our heart, and from verses that ask who can resist His will. Irrisistable grace applies to the elect, not to be confused with the heathens. Irrisistable grace also does not ignore verses concerning "quenching" or "grieving" the Holy Spirit. Certainly every time a Christian sins, it "grieves" the Holy Spirit, but God is faithful, even when we are not.

Walter Kovacs said:

The concept of theological determinism, which is neither a product of Hebrew nor early Christian though.

Click to expand...

Really? How about Romans 9:16 "So then it depends not on human will or exertion"?

Romans 9:18 "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills."? Does God not have free will to harden whomever He wants, and does the person whom He hardens really have a choice in the matter? Hint: The answer is in the following verse.

Did Scripture come into being by libertarian free will?

2 Peter 1:21 "For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

I don't think so.

As for early Christian thought, let's not forget St. Augustine, who's thought had great influence on Calvin's thought.

Walter Kovacs said:

Calvins early fascination with the Stoics contributes a lot to this.

Click to expand...

I have to be honest with you brother, I grow tired of reading unfounded charges of pre-conversion thought being mixed with post-conversion thought. Key word there is unfounded. This same charge could be leveled at every one of us, making it a spurious claim.

Walter Kovacs said:

Compatiblism is still determinism, except that humans are now 'somehow' responsible for their actions, again, and idea I don't find in Scripture. It's not that God is in absolute control and we're just somehow responsible, that's just silly. God is sovereign and we are responsible precisely because we're free (well, as free as we can be). Compatibalism simply does not fit the Biblical picture.

Click to expand...

If you read the article on compatibilism that I linked to for you, you would have read "Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed in terms of a compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism." Compatibilists, or in the context here, Calvinists do not deny "free will", it is defined differently than non-Calvinists define it, that is, in a more narrow sense, which is in line with Scripture.

Prophecy for one, is not compatible with libertarian free will, nor the fulfillment of it. I do hope you will re-think and consider these things.

Does the Bible not teach that God is almighty, all-powerful? Yeah, that would make Him a being of not just power but supreme power over all.

Click to expand...

No one denies God is sovereign.

Did Scripture come into being by libertarian free will?

Click to expand...

I haven't once argued for LFW; nor do I believe in it.

As for early Christian thought, let's not forget St. Augustine, who's thought had great influence on Calvin's thought.

Click to expand...

You know there were more early influential guys than Augustine in early Christianity, right? He was pretty much the black sheep of the herd, in several ways. I happen to think he was wrong, on quite a lot, and have defended that view elsewhere. As a philosopher, he's one of the greatest. As a theologian, eh, not so much. Actually, I can firmly say I disagree with most of his theological ideas, original guilt being the the first one to come to mind. If Tzaousios sees this, I'm sure he'll remember our discussion on it.

I have to be honest with you brother, I grow tired of reading unfounded charges of pre-conversion thought being mixed with post-conversion thought. Key word there is unfounded.

Click to expand...

Those aren't unfounded charges, it's simple historic fact. No one just thinks up any ideas in a vacuum devoid of influences; that goes for every person who has ever had a thought, you me, everyone. The historic fact is that Calvin was very interested in Stoic determinism; his first treatise was on the various Stoic doctrines of fate. It's not a charge, it's context. Much like how Augustine's fascination with Platonism (or neo-Platonism if) you wanna get technical) led to many of his ideas. Much like how Anselms historical context contributed to 'De Cur Homos,' and how Luthers contexts contributed to his misreadings of 2nd Temple Judaism, and how the context of the Reformation led to departures from historical Christian thought and a focus on individualism. Context is not accusation, it's just fact.

This same charge could be leveled at every one of us,

Click to expand...

Well, duh. Every one of us has contexts, experiences, lenses and presuppositions we bring to the table, especially when studying Scripture. I bring my own views and expectations, you do, everyone does. My life experiences influence how I interpret Scripture, and everything else. The trick is to realize that and remember that it's there.

If you read the article on compatibilism that I linked to for you, you would have read "Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed in terms of a compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism." Compatibilists, or in the context here, Calvinists do not deny "free will", it is defined differently than non-Calvinists define it, that is, in a more narrow sense, which is in line with Scripture.

Click to expand...

I'm aware of what compatabalism is. My argument is that it isn't Biblical. Apart from a few radical sects, the Hebrews never developed too much predestinarian theology; it just wasn't needed. God was sovereign over all creation and working it towards His ultimate will, but He wasn't literally causing every little thing to happen. I see no real reason to depart from that view.

Prophecy for one, is not compatible with libertarian free will, nor the fulfillment of it. I do hope you will re-think and consider these things.

Click to expand...

Once again, I have not defended nor do I believe in LFW.

For the record, I have no problem with anyone holding any particular view, nor do I consider myself the be-all end-all of theology. I enjoy talking with you and have much respect for you. I mean nothing personal in anything I say. I also enjoy reading Calvin; what a brilliant mind for commenting on Scripture, as well as his Institutes. I can't believe he wrote those when he was barely older than me.

Pinkman said:

Was A W Pink a hyper Calvinist ?

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/147a-TheBannerTruthvsCalvinism.pdf

It seems The Banner of Truth is a non-hyper version of Calvinism taking a swipe at the hyper Calvinist position by deleting some of Pink's book. The part 'The Banner Muzzles A. W. Pink '

Quote from the web page -
The following from the chapter on reprobation is an
example of what was censored; see how Pink
pointed the finger right at The Banner of Truth:

The thoughtful reader will naturally ask,
And what of those who were not "ordained
to eternal life?" The answer which is
usually returned to this question, even by
those who profess to believe what the
Scriptures teach concerning God’s
sovereignty, is, that God passes by the
non-elect, leaves them alone to go their
own way, and in the end casts them into
the Lake of Fire because they refused His
way, and rejected the Saviour of His
providing. But this is only part of the truth;
the other part–that which is most offensive
to the carnal mind–is either ignored or
denied. . . . He loves one and hates
another. He exercises mercy toward some
and hardens others, without reference to
anything save


I have alway thought of Pink as a hyper Calvinist which I have maintained on this thread is the simplest 'ism' to understand.

I am confused by those who argue against hyper Calvinism and then quote pink to support their case

Click to expand...

Pink wasn't hyper-calvinist. Not sure where you are getting your information from. The BOT version of his book "The Sovereignty of God" actually cut out the portions of his book that support double-predestination - which a belief in does not make one hyper-calvinist.

I know you claim to be some kind of expert on this stuff - but to be honest I'm not sure you understand the difference btn hyper-calvinism and calvinism.

I highly recommend the Baker Books unedited versions of Pink's books. They are such a blessing to read....

Pinkman said:

Was A W Pink a hyper Calvinist ?

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/147a-TheBannerTruthvsCalvinism.pdf

Click to expand...

No. Pink is a high Calvinist, that is, someone who holds certain opinions about the restrictions of God's grace that aren't shared across all of Calvinism.

That doesn't make him hyper. That makes him controversial.

Once again, with feeling: satisfying Dordt is generally the litmus test of Calvinism as far as Soteriology goes.

There are ranges of theologies that satisfy Dordt, and there are ranges that don't. To expect a monolith from individuals is implausible.

Pinkman said:

Really !! What about the Christmas Calvinists already mentioned in several threads. They are not Calvinist now ?

As for finer points - Was Adam 'elect', created upright or created totally depraved as the supralapsarians tell us ?

Also from this thread alone there seems to be a division between hyper and non hyper Calvinists.

Click to expand...

The question -- in translation -- addresses the issue of whether a limited Atonement is an essential to Calvinism.

It is.

In general the issue is a red herring. Everyone who's not a universalist believes the Atonement is limited in its actual application. That's effectively what Limited Atonement is all about.

Even Amyrault held to hypothetical universalism, not actual. The Atonement is actually limited.

But Amyrualdianism is considered the outside edge of Calvinism.

Pinkman said:

You know wrong. I do not claim to be an expert. Seems to me Heymikey80 is the expert from his detailed posts.

Who is Baker ?

Click to expand...

Baker is a publisher. They're normally good at publishing the original works without biasing them with commentary. What results is largely the bias of the original author, instead of someone's reaction to him.

I haven't found much if anything objectionable theologically in Behe's Boy's concise postings. We do each have our perceptions of both the situation and the posts we're responding to.

Pinkman said:

A W Pink
But this is only part of the truth;
the other part–that which is most offensive
to the carnal mind–is either ignored or
denied. . . . He loves one and hates
another. He exercises mercy toward some
and hardens others, without reference to
anything save

It is this 'offensive', i.e loving one and hating the other. I have found many Calvinists who back of of this and going for the soft option i.e passes over.

Click to expand...

I think the issue would be whether God hates. In that instance, Scripture's actually supplied the answer: 'though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."' Rom 9:11-13

Further afield the question would be how intensely or absolutely God engages in hatred. The Greek word seems to be used in relative situations as well as absolute. Some would then translate this, "loved less".

But then the issue appears, that this text occurs in a description of God's choosing people for salvation. So the impact of this term, whether it's "loved less" or "hated" makes no difference, the impact is decisive when it comes to soteriology.

Pinkman said:

Who is Baker ?

Click to expand...

Baker Books - publisher.

Pinkman said:

A W Pink
But this is only part of the truth;
the other part–that which is most offensive
to the carnal mind–is either ignored or
denied. . . . He loves one and hates
another. He exercises mercy toward some
and hardens others, without reference to
anything save

It is this 'offensive', i.e loving one and hating the other. I have found many Calvinists who back of of this and going for the soft option i.e passes over.

Click to expand...

Yes it's called 'Preterition' , it is a important componant of the Doctrine of Reprobation .

The truth is some Calvinists ignore or overlook Preterition and simply view God's actions as equal , but mature Calvinist thought openly denies "equal ultimacy" , that is God does not work sin into the reprobate as He works righteousness in the elect .

The BOT recognising this important aspect of reprobation decided to edit out a few chapters of Pink but both editions are widely available today.

Now , what is God's attitude toward those who shall not be saved ?

On what basis does the Lord reject any ? Upon what basis are men condemned ? Upon what basis are some not elected ? these are the questions central to the reason for BOT editing Pink .

Is there room for debate and even disagreement amongst Calvinists ? Of course , why wouldn't there be ?

You must distinguish between Calvinism (Dort) and NONE Calvinism as opposed to a completely separate issue of High and Moderate Calvinism which come from within Calvinistic Soteriology (5 Points) , these debates are not the same at all.

So the basic issue here is that Calvinism is identified and scoped differently from the popular mindset. But it's also very easy for individuals to adopt their own alternate opinions about what Calvinism is and isn't, and alternately fawn or fume over it.

Some will attack certain items of Calvinism based on "what has resulted" outside of Calvinism, outside what Calvinism has already knowingly rejected. To me that's not a factor for the accuracy of the theology. Jesus' teaching itself resulted in a wild tumult of heresy, no one's going to improve on God in that situation.

In fact, one could also point to numerous issues outside Calvinism that came into the Calvinist churches and also created aberrant practices. If results were persuasive argument, that'd be an argument against theology inside & out. But it's not persuasive. Calvinism already assumes this conclusion. We humans always go wrong. Total Depravity is well-established by simply observing and comparing human behavior.

Does God "hate"? He says He "hates". Where that takes us is across quite a range of possibility, but the statement itself is valid. Scripture says so.

Does God "predestine"? He says He "predestines". Where that takes us is across quite a range of possibility, but the statement itself is valid. Scripture says so.

These are points of contact that construct Calvinism. When addressing an issue, the issue should resolve consistently with the statements of Scripture, as far as the Scripture means what it says.

That's the hermeneutic: resort to Scripture and its context to answer to issues.