Understanding Calvinism

[heymikey80]

This is true. But the problem comes in the oft-repeated objection to non-Calvinists of "misunderstanding" what Calvinism is. If there are no essentials, and if it is unreasonable to ask for them, then I don't see the basis for the objection.

I've seen the same complaints of other non-essentialist groups: Lutherans, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, Orthodox.

There certainly is a basis for the objection, when the assertions about Calvinism have been rejected for 500 years and yet still appear as accusations. It's not what Calvinists uniformly accept that's the issue. But there's plenty that Calvinists uniformly reject. In point of fact most denominational splits occur over those rejections.

It would be more helpful for any given Calvinist to simply say "this is what I believe and I can't answer for others", just as any Christian of any particular "label" might do.

A quick survey of people of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox persuasion here shows an entirely different result. They're not doing so. There's no reason for Calvinists to do so, either.

In the end, people defy easy labels and faith is truly an individual matter. As such, then, it seems reasonable that we dispense with the labels or just use them as generalities, which again pulls the support out from under the claim that others fail to understand.

This is essentially a baby & bath water situation. I've seen it in everything from junk science to astrology, and it's simply not a reasonable argument. People use language as symbols for things, and adjust those symbols as needed to deal with the conditions that prevail.

When there's large agreement, then a label will fit. The Synod of Dordt involves quite a large number of people, and only a vocal minority objects, on subtle grounds, to certain statements. Further afield, groups have laid claim to Calvinism but have been overwhelmingly rejected as laying such claim, by rejecting larger sections of Dordt or even claiming the Remonstrance was the "right" view of Calvinism.

But there's no such thing as a "unequivocal" label. Linguistics should teach anyone that who cares to understand language.

 

[2thePoint]

I've seen the same complaints of other non-essentialist groups: Lutherans, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, Orthodox.

Exactly, which is the overall point: regardless of the label or topic or group, it is unfair to expect people outside the group to understand every nuance, flavor, or unique property. One should clearly state their particular view in every detail before telling another that they misunderstand.

There certainly is a basis for the objection, when the assertions about Calvinism have been rejected for 500 years and yet still appear as accusations. It's not what Calvinists uniformly accept that's the issue. But there's plenty that Calvinists uniformly reject. In point of fact most denominational splits occur over those rejections.

Not if the particular Calvinist making the objection isn't completely "standard", and as we've seen here, there seems to be no such thing; there is no "that Calvinists uniformly reject", according to what's been posted in this thread.

A quick survey of people of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox persuasion here shows an entirely different result. They're not doing so. There's no reason for Calvinists to do so, either.

I said it would be helpful if they did, not that they already do.

This is essentially a baby & bath water situation. I've seen it in everything from junk science to astrology, and it's simply not a reasonable argument. People use language as symbols for things, and adjust those symbols as needed to deal with the conditions that prevail.

I did in fact say that such things can be used for generalities. The problem is when people have a particular deviation from that undefinable "standard" and then complain that others "don't understand". Again, it is unfair to expect outsiders to know every possible variation.

When there's large agreement, then a label will fit.

Again, this is what I said about generalities. But in this thread, even the generalities have not been defined, which is what I was asking to see from the start. Some say the canons of Dort, others may say all five points of TULIP, still others only three of them, etc. Without a firm definition for the general beliefs that every single Calvinist must hold, it is a valid argument to object to the charge of misunderstanding.

The Synod of Dordt involves quite a large number of people, and only a vocal minority objects, on subtle grounds, to certain statements.

So are they not Calvinists because of this?

Further afield, groups have laid claim to Calvinism but have been overwhelmingly rejected as laying such claim, by rejecting larger sections of Dordt or even claiming the Remonstrance was the "right" view of Calvinism.

Again, is the majority the arbiter of the definition of Calvinism, such that the minorities are all non-Calvinists?

 

[Tzaousios]

2thePoint, one might start to get the impression that you wish to exploit any perceived divisions, rather than gain an understanding of historical, classical Calvinism. What exactly do you hope to accomplish?

 

[Zeena]

Adams did not decree Adams, as in man did not decree his own fall?

Big typo, it was late at night. It should be God did not decree....

So then;

God did not decree Adams [fall]?

Is that the sentence you meant to say?

Also, what view do you hold, if you don't mind me asking?
I kind of hold to the supra view. Partly it was drummed in from an early age and it seems to move away is to question God's omniscience and omnipotence.

Is not God omniscient and omnipotent no matter man does?

Job 33:8-12
Surely thou hast spoken in mine hearing, and I have heard the voice of thy words, saying, I am clean without transgression, I am innocent; neither is there iniquity in me. Behold, he findeth occasions against me, he counteth me for his enemy, He putteth my feet in the stocks, he marketh all my paths.
Behold, in this thou art not just: I will answer thee, that God is greater than man.

Another factor for me is that I see the -post fall single predestination -side represented on not just this forum as confusing. Different people hold different ideas that do not appear consistent to me. E.g the baby issue. I do not know the answer to this and it does bother me.

So then, you are an adherant of double-predestination?

Just for info - I have spent most of my life in the Southern UK. I believe if all church goers in the UK were questioned, it would show that 90% hold arminian ideas and I believe most of that 90% would not realize it. Calvinism is not mainstream in the UK protestant church. Rather the big divide (not quite the right word) is those who are very charismatic and those who are not. Some would say that if you do not have a gift - usually tongues - and also have not been slain in the spirit then you are not saved. I find this ironic as hard line Calvinism holds a parallel in that if you are not elect then you are not saved (and can never be)

Any theology which excludes Jesus as it's centre is doomed to fall.

Our Salvation rests in Him, and our faith on Him to redeem us.

So I have my own doubts. Do I depart from my family background ? I now live abroad but it is still a big step.

That is between you and your Heavenly Father.

Go with God.

Is e.g the subject of "Total depravity" debatable within Calvinism ? I would have held to the supra view however I have heard this subject debated with several interpretations put forth. Hence this thread. Is there a mainstream view in the USA ?

I'm more looking for your view, as you are the OP I am responding to.

I am not after a comparison with arminianism as many threads have already done that.

Me neither.

But my first question remains to be answered;

Was Adam the son of God, as the Scripture clearly indicates, according to your theology, as a Calvinist?

Also, if there is any teaching on this, according to Calvin, I would be very interested.

 

[2thePoint]

2thePoint, one might start to get the impression that you wish to exploit any perceived divisions, rather than gain an understanding of historical, classical Calvinism. What exactly do you hope to accomplish?

I'm glad you asked, instead of merely presuming and judging.

My purpose is strictly logical, that is, the OP's question has not been answered. What I am after is precision, so that Calvinists can understand why it seems almost everyone misunderstands their theology. To point out what you freely admit-- divisions, lack of uniformity, or whatever one might call it-- is an honest and reasonable activity in the quest for understanding. Had the topic been Roman Catholicism or Orthodox or Fundamentalist Baptist or whatever, the questions would be the same, so Calvinism is not being unfairly singled out here, but happens to be the specific topic of this thread.

So my point still remains: if Calvinists cannot define essential beliefs which render all who accept them Calvinists and all who reject then non-Calvinists, they cannot justify their objections to being misunderstood. And again, this principle would apply to any group making the same objection; in fact, it can be made about Christianity in general. And that is precisely why I only claim to understand what I personally believe, and if I explain what I believe in sufficient detail, only then can I say someone misunderstands my belief.

 

[Pinkman]

God did not decree Adams [fall]?
The supra view is that God decreed Adams sin. The infra view is that Adam was totally free to sin or not and after the fall God did all the electing and so forth,


Is not God omniscient and omnipotent no matter man does?
The obvious answer is yes. This is where Calvinists in general depart from arminianism. If it is up to man then God is neither. The supra view is easy to understand in this respect i.e even Adams action being predestined. The infra view is I believe what causes a lot of debate. If God is sovereign how can he hold those he passed over responsible for sin if God barred any way for them to repent. (paraphrasing several posts)

Job
In brief, I have seen a lot of good aguments put forth that Job shows "total depravity" to be wrong i.e God made Job 'upright'. Not saying I agree but the arguments are good.

So then, you are an adherant of double-predestination?
Used to be yes. that was by background. As I said in a previous post, I have doubts and a load of baggage as well. Hence trawling through a load of threads on this forum.


I'm more looking for your view, as you are the OP I am responding to.
Ok. here is some of J Calvin's institutes that causes me to scratch my head.

Fall decreed by God
"...it is utterly inconsistent to transfer the preparation for destruction to anything but God's secret plan." "..God's secret plan is the cause of hardening". Book 2, Ch 23, Section 1

Fall NOT decreed by God
"Man falls according as God's providence ordains, but he falls by his own fault". Book 3, Ch 23, Section 8

God “Predestines people to damnation”
Some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and accordingly, as each has been created for one or the other of those ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death.” Book 3, Ch 21, Section 5

No – God “Passes Over”
"Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children." Book 3, Ch 23, Section 1


I hate this next one
… hence even infants bring their condemnation with them from their mother’s womb, suffer not from another’s, but their own defect….and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God.
Book 2, Ch 1, Section 8

"Even children, dying un baptized, are lost." Martin Luther !!!


Was Adam the son of God, as the Scripture clearly indicates, according to your theology, as a Calvinist?
Not as in begotten. No I believe not.

Also, if there is any teaching on this, according to Calvin, I would be very interested.
Not to my knowledge.
[/I]

BTW I am not after a critique of just Calvin. I got the quotes above from a posting on CF. I have not checked them all out. I would say A W Pink is more severe than Calvin.

What do you think ? I am thinking you are not a Calvinist but maybe not an arminian either (which is fine).

 

[Pinkman]

2thePoint, one might start to get the impression that you wish to exploit any perceived divisions, rather than gain an understanding of historical, classical Calvinism. What exactly do you hope to accomplish?

I hope to accomplish a situation where opponents to Calvinism and Calvinists can stop bashing each other. Ill paraphrase a post by Nobodysfool which made me smile.

"...... but we know which side of the aisle it is coming from". It reminded me of some old British comedies on the BBC of some church scenes which descend into mayhem". Only by watching the program can the humor be appreciated. However the thought that all are in Church together is a good one. Hopefully all in heaven together to.


I also wish to accomplish clearing up some confusion for not just myself regarding the infra type of Calvinism

 

[Eleiou]

This is a good point. Do you think it would be safe to say that the Canons of Dordt encapusulate a historically-verifiable, Reformational, and therefore classical, perspective of Calvinism against Hyper-Calvinism and various strands of Neo-Calvinism out there today?

For me Dordt is the litmus test. I guarantee you Geisler does not agree with the Canons of Dordt - hence he is not a true Calvinist despite the fact he calls himself a moderate calvinist - which is a joke in and of itself.

Calvinism is merely the proper understanding of scripture, pure and simple, as mentioned previously the Canons of Dordt explains the doctrine.

The Canons of Dordt

No doubt influenced to some degree by The Canons of the Council of Orange 1000 yrs before.

............When there's large agreement, then a label will fit. The Synod of Dordt involves quite a large number of people, and only a vocal minority objects, on subtle grounds, to certain statements.

The Particular (Reformed) Baptists agree with a great majority of doctrine at the Dordtrecht Synod. The differences arise not in soteriology, but mostly in ecclesiology.

 

[Jpark]

God “Predestines people to damnation”
Some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and accordingly, as each has been created for one or the other of those ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death.” Book 3, Ch 21, Section 5

No – God “Passes Over”
"Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children." Book 3, Ch 23, Section 1

Both true.

Acts 13:48; 1 Peter 2:8
John 12:40; 2 Thess. 2:11-12

But as always, there's a crucial doctrine missing that makes it look like a hateful doctrine. That crucial doctrine is God's interventions.

There's two kinds of them: conditional and unconditional

The doctrine of God's intervention is essential to the survival of Calvinism. It's in the Bible:

Psalm 102:18-20 For He looked down from His holy height;
From heaven the LORD gazed upon the earth,
20 To hear the groaning of the prisoner,
To set free those who were doomed to death [Lit 'the sons of death'],

So how long will it take for Calvinists to recognize the need for reform?

Why would God look down from heaven for those who seek Him (Psalm 14:2) if there are none (Psalm 14:3)?

These answer that question:

Conditional:

2 Chronicles 7:13-14; 2 Kings 20:1-6; Jonah 3:10; Daniel 9-10

Notice 'saw' and 'hear'.

Unconditional:

Isaiah 57:15, Psalm 14:2, Acts 17:26-27
Psalm 102:18-20; Job 7:17; Job 15:14; Job 32:7-9; Isaiah 57:16
Matt. 26:41; Romans 7:18

It's quite obvious man's spirit is the key to this dilemma. Why should a God who could end creation within a second (Job 34:14-15) waste His time with supposedly flawed creation and bother to save Noah and kill the rest with Flood? Because creation is not flawed. They're misguided. And God wants to lead their spirit in the right direction.

 

[Jpark]

Heck look at it who it's written to:

Verse 18 This will be written for the generation to come,
That a people yet to be created may praise the LORD.

 

[JustAsIam77]

I'm glad you asked, instead of merely presuming and judging.

My purpose is strictly logical, that is, the OP's question has not been answered. What I am after is precision, so that Calvinists can understand why it seems almost everyone misunderstands their theology. To point out what you freely admit-- divisions, lack of uniformity, or whatever one might call it-- is an honest and reasonable activity in the quest for understanding. Had the topic been Roman Catholicism or Orthodox or Fundamentalist Baptist or whatever, the questions would be the same, so Calvinism is not being unfairly singled out here, but happens to be the specific topic of this thread.

So my point still remains: if Calvinists cannot define essential beliefs which render all who accept them Calvinists and all who reject then non-Calvinists, they cannot justify their objections to being misunderstood. And again, this principle would apply to any group making the same objection; in fact, it can be made about Christianity in general. And that is precisely why I only claim to understand what I personally believe, and if I explain what I believe in sufficient detail, only then can I say someone misunderstands my belief.

With all due respect, understanding Calvinism can be a long road of research, rightly dividing the truth of the Gospel and inward reflection of the true meaning of Scripture. It's not a process that is done in one thread. There are literally thousands of posts about this subject.

If one is disposed to seek the truth it will come to him eventually.

 

[2thePoint]

With all due respect, understanding Calvinism can be a long road of research, rightly dividing the truth of the Gospel and inward reflection of the true meaning of Scripture. It's not a process that is done in one thread. There are literally thousands of posts about this subject.

If one is disposed to seek the truth it will come to him eventually.

Perhaps a theology so complex that it's still misunderstood after thousands of posts might have a fundamental flaw. I rather prefer "For God so loved the world that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life."

 

[Eleiou]

Viewing many threads the phrase 'You do not understand Calvinism" has often popped up.

I would like to start a thread where Calvinists can answer really tough questions about what Calvinism means.

Definitely NOT Calvinism vs anything else as its been done and usual ends up with a moderator intervening.

Any takers ?

Errrmmmm......... Sorry........... I've watched folk arguing for no reason...... would you like to ask soterioligical questions............ YOU SHOULD ask a Calvinist........Ask a Calvinist - Christian Forums

 

[JustAsIam77]

Perhaps a theology so complex that it's still misunderstood after thousands of posts might have a fundamental flaw. I rather prefer "For God so loved the world that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life."

That will work just fine, if you want to dig deeper it's a rewarding journey.

 

[2thePoint]

That will work just fine, if you want to dig deeper it's a rewarding journey.

Oh I love digging deeper... been at it for a long time and don't plan to stop. But salvation itself is the simplest, clearest thing: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved".

 

[Zeena]

"Was Adam the son of God, as the Scripture clearly indicates, according to your theology, as a Calvinist?"
Not as in begotten. No I believe not.

There's only One Begotten, and that's not what I meant to imply.

But rather, was Adam a Saint?

What are the teachings of Calvin on identification as a Saint?
Elect of God unto Salvation according to calvinism?

Also, if there is any teaching on this, according to Calvin, I would be very interested.
Not to my knowledge.

What do you think ? I am thinking you are not a Calvinist but maybe not an arminian either (which is fine).

You are correct in your assumption.

I am neither.

 

[Pinkman]

In my youth I was from a strong Calvinist community. Hyper calvinism was not mentioned but that is really what it was. Decades later there seems three main options. At least the ones that cause heated debate.

Hyper Calvinism - God decreed everyone would be born totally depraved. Some would get saved but only those who had been predestined to get saved. The rest would and in fact could never get saved. I.e double predestination. The advantage of this is it is simple to understand. No problem with God being omniscient. Disadvantage is that it make God the author of sin. Those who advocate this system would say ( I once did) 'to bad'. We are the clay not the potter, it is not given to us to understand so get used to it.

Arminianism. In short God offers salvation. Man can take it or leave it. It seems much fairer. Does not mean that God is the author of sin. But it looks like God's will is a bit dependent on Man's free will so perhaps God is not so omniscient (OK that is an all too brief summary )

These two systems of thought are fairly simple to comprehend.

A third system is non-hyper Calvinism. God is sovereign but man is responsible for sin. The more I hear and read about this the more confused I get. For one its not simple. Several posters say 'read the canons of Dordt'. Where as the first two systems rely on the Bible for 'proof' texts. Sometimes they are even the same texts but interpreted differently. Many of the posts are very good BUT i cannot see them having any effect on the children in Sunday school classes.

Behe thinks I am masquerading. I think I would summarize my self as a hyper Calvinist but with some doubts. It is not just me that would like a clear and simple understanding of non-hyper Calvinism. Assuming there is one. Most non hypers I speak to always seem to end up in the hyper school when questioned so why not start in that school of thought and have done with it.

I will assert that God is 100% sovereign and also responsible for mans sin in an uncomprehendable way or God has relinquished some of his sovereignty 0.1% to allow man free will and therefore responsible for his own sin.

So please - non hyper Calvinists pleas put me right.

 

[Jpark]

The only thing God relinquished and yet retained/retrieved was His authority and title (to Jesus) and a small portion of His power over death (to Satan).

God does not relinquish His sovereignty. God can change His own future and have absolute foreknowledge. And we do not always have free will. It's that simple.

God has no responsibility. He does what He does because He wants to not because He has to. If He didn't intervene, it's not His fault because He bases His actions on man's affairs (although there is also unconditional action which is based on His pity and senses). It's an incredibly smart move and we are helpless to do anything about it so complaining is pointless.

 

[Pinkman]

The only thing God relinquished and yet retained/retrieved was His authority and title (to Jesus) and a small portion of His power over death (to Satan).

God does not relinquish His sovereignty. God can change His own future and have absolute foreknowledge. And we do not always have free will. It's that simple.

God has no responsibility. He does what He does because He wants to not because He has to. If He didn't intervene, it's not His fault because He bases His actions on man's affairs (although there is also unconditional action which is based on His pity and senses). It's an incredibly smart move and we are helpless to do anything about it so complaining is pointless.

Who complains, also who suggest 'he has to' ?

And we do not always have free willGuess you are neither Calvinist nor arminian.

I am a bit surprised that no non-hyper Calvinist has put forth a simple treatise of their system that would convince if not Sunday School children then at least those in high school. I guess that all those who quote ' do not understand Calvinism' are justified..

 

[cygnusx1]

Exactly, which is the overall point: regardless of the label or topic or group, it is unfair to expect people outside the group to understand every nuance, flavor, or unique property. One should clearly state their particular view in every detail before telling another that they misunderstand.

Not if the particular Calvinist making the objection isn't completely "standard", and as we've seen here, there seems to be no such thing; there is no "that Calvinists uniformly reject", according to what's been posted in this thread.


I said it would be helpful if they did, not that they already do.


I did in fact say that such things can be used for generalities. The problem is when people have a particular deviation from that undefinable "standard" and then complain that others "don't understand". Again, it is unfair to expect outsiders to know every possible variation.


Again, this is what I said about generalities. But in this thread, even the generalities have not been defined, which is what I was asking to see from the start. Some say the canons of Dort, others may say all five points of TULIP, still others only three of them, etc. Without a firm definition for the general beliefs that every single Calvinist must hold, it is a valid argument to object to the charge of misunderstanding.



So are they not Calvinists because of this?


Again, is the majority the arbiter of the definition of Calvinism, such that the minorities are all non-Calvinists?

If you agree with Dort (5 Points/TULIP) then you are Calvinist in your soteriology , if you do not then you are Arminian in your Soteriology , it's that simple !

I have never seen a poster who objected to Dort come up with anything but Arminian views deductions and conclusions , even though they almost always claim to not be Arminian their views are just the same.

One example should suffice ;

One either accepts the Doctrine of "the Security Of Salvation" or one does not , there is no middle ground .