Understanding Calvinism

[cygnusx1]

This sounds to me like hyper Calvinism. Everyone is created totaly depraved.

not everyone . Adam was created upright .

no freewill to not be part of Adam.

There wasn't a problem with that until man sinned . I have to say man is to blame.

God also giving them no chance to be saved.

If that were true NONE could or would be saved , but millions are saved by Christ.

How does this square with HeyMikey's asymmetric predestination ? Seems to me two opposite systems of thought.

explain.

 

[heymikey80]

This sounds to me like hyper Calvinism. Everyone is created totaly depraved. no freewill to not be part of Adam. God also giving them no chance to be saved.

The condition of human beings (descendants of Adam) is equivalent.

Do you have free will to not be human?

How does this square with HeyMikey's asymmetric predestination ? Seems to me two opposite systems of thought.

They're not.

Is there a comprehension of Dordt? It's cited often enough.

 

[Pinkman]

OK- from all of the above posts, is the Calvinistic position clearer to those who are not Calvinist ? If another thread has a post with "you do not understand Calvinism", can the poster point to this thread to solve that ?

 

[AndOne]

OK- from all of the above posts, is the Calvinistic position clearer to those who are not Calvinist ? If another thread has a post with "you do not understand Calvinism", can the poster point to this thread to solve that ?

Although this thread would certainly be helpful I would most definately point to the Canons of Dordt first and foremost to anyone interested in understanding Calvinism better.

 

[Pinkman]

......Libertarianism is the representative viewpoint in the US. In general religious people in the US are simply Pelagians. They don't think much further than that.

Why do you think that Libertarianism is the representative view ? In the UK I would say most are arminian without realizing it. Mention a Calvinistic view point and one will get it in the neck. Maybe not so much in NI or Scotland.

To paraphrase a question "If God predestines some as reprobates with no chance of being saved how can God hold them responsible for the sin they could not possibly not have done"

I can answer this from a hyper point of view. 'Its the way it is mr clay and you have no right to complain to the potter'.

I cannot answer this from a non hyper view point. It seems to be what Dordt is saying using a lot more words. I am not alone. It seems the dominant complaint in the UK and also on these forums. Being rude to several public speakers in the UK. From what I have seen and heard they are hopeless. Making a big mess of things.

My conviction is that if this can be answered in simple terms for Joe public the a lot of debate and division will evaporate. Maybe I am nuts. You might say read Dordt again. But for a multitude that does not cut the mustard.
Hence I do not believe this thread has been of much use.

So I am truly a Methodist, and also a Calvinist and a Presbyterian. I'm annoyed when Calvinists attempt to suppress discussion, and I'm equally annoyed when Methodists attempt to rationalize-away what Scripture says. And vice versa. And anything that is an attempt to back off from the truth. The truth is what we're looking for....

Absolutely - looking for the truth.

 

[billybtennessee]

Absolutely - looking for the truth.

Amen. Gods truth is found in Jesus Christ. Believing all revealed about Him. He is the Christ. Gods only begotten Son. Was crucified for our sins. Buried, and arose from the tomb. His sacrifice is the only propitiation for sin. He is the only means to approach God, and be forgiven, justified, reconciled. Believe in Him. Trust all He did. Obey Him. Abide in Him.

All the theology, terms, sects, rites, are useless without Him. We discuss so much. We have topics galore that we feel one 'must' recognize to be a true christian. They are all added to Jesus Christ. One is not a true christian without Him, abiding in Him, trusting Him. Only HE is truth, concerning soteriology. I fear that too often, FAR too often, we spend endless time and words on subjects that only serve to rob from the simple, pure, gospel of Jesus Christ. God forgive us.

Even that offends some folks, from all of christendom. It has been interesting, and civil, this one. God Bless.

 

[heymikey80]

Why do you think that Libertarianism is the representative view ? In the UK I would say most are arminian without realizing it. Mention a Calvinistic view point and one will get it in the neck. Maybe not so much in NI or Scotland.

I doubt seriously that anyone would represent their view as arminian. But you could try it by asking their viewpoint on depravity, in comparison with that of the Remonstrance.

I think you'll find that the prevalent view is not arminian, but Pelagian. "We're good people that bad things happen to."

To paraphrase a question "If God predestines some as reprobates with no chance of being saved how can God hold them responsible for the sin they could not possibly not have done"

Well, if you want to avoid the Biblical response or find it needs some explanation -- it's not hypercalvinistic to point out the Biblical response, there are plenty of deterministic philosophers to check-in with.

I'm reminded by Spinoza that the guilty party is no less guilty due to his will compelling him to always do wrong. Are criminals not guilty simply because they'd always do crimes? It's an odd response. So a murderer is not guilty simply because he would always be careless with a human life.

The libertarian free-will argument is a poor argument in and of itself. They lock up people who are criminally insane, either way. Forget the libertarian concept of "blame", because under that concept, libertarians are being unjust toward such people to deny them the freedoms they so prominently publicize. They're oppressing the poor people who can't help themselves when they lie, steal, maim or kill out of their own wills.

As you should be able to see by now, the philosophical view of libertarian free will, while it's constantly publicized by this culture, is inconsistent.

The compatibilist view is by far the winner on count of consistency. People are imprisoned when they can't help themselves: some to get the help they need, some to protect them from those they treat unjustly.

I can answer this from a hyper point of view. 'Its the way it is mr clay and you have no right to complain to the potter'.

It's not simply a hyper point of view. Romans 9:19-21 states this in so many words. The point is, the hypercalvinist generally uses one item it's right on, to try to establish credibility on other items it's wrong on.

The issue is whether the public can make any sense of one mistaken view when they're so badly wrong on their own view. "Two wrongs" and all that. No, in order to get an accurate picture of the problems of hypercalvinism someone needs to recognize and reform the problems of their own. Y'can't fix one wrong view by rejecting it and embracing an equal and opposite wrong view. It takes a redemptive approach. Not rejection -- redemption. Not isolation -- reformation.

I cannot answer this from a non hyper view point. It seems to be what Dordt is saying using a lot more words. I am not alone. It seems the dominant complaint in the UK and also on these forums. Being rude to several public speakers in the UK. From what I have seen and heard they are hopeless. Making a big mess of things.

No one has a monopoly on rudeness. Plenty of people will lock-in on a particular opinion without regard to its context. I'm reminded of a comedy, "Outnumbered", where children were written-in with exactly such kinds of questions. I doubt they had any idea what they were asking or why the questions weren't appropriate for their context -- they just knew they were funny ... maybe -- but I guarantee that the show's writers knew.

My conviction is that if this can be answered in simple terms for Joe public the a lot of debate and division will evaporate. Maybe I am nuts.

Yeah. When people are offensive, people will naturally take offense. My opinion is that simple terms aren't enough to dissuade people from assuming that their view is best. They'll continue on down their merry path to destruction without a thought in the world.

You might say read Dordt again. But for a multitude that does not cut the mustard.

What was it Jesus said? "If they don't listen to God's words, they won't listen even if someone who came back from the dead."

You can certainly make the obvious case. It's entirely accessible to anyone who stops to think about it. But since few stop to think, that accessibility will be quite clearly stamped on.

 

[Zeena]

???


still waiting for proof of Adam's being elect ?

Those whom He foreknew is limited by it's context .

Who are the sons of God is the context.

Luke 3:38
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Once a son always a son, no?

Show where scripture states Adam was elect or saved .

I just did. Here, let me get my megaphone.

Rom 8:14
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Gen 2:19
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

------------------

Acts 2:39
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

Gen 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

--------------------

Gen 3:21
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Ex 40:13
And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest's office.

Heb 9:22
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

not everyone . Adam was created upright .

What does this mean, if not holy and blameless before Him in Love?

Eph 1:9-10
Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

... first born amongst many brethren NOT the entire human race .

Does not 'brethren' denote fellowship in the Holy Spirit?

Are we not all 'brethren' in the Lord?

There are two Adams , one heads up fallen lost sinful race ie, ruined , the second Adam heads up the redeemed , renewed , regenerated and is even called ONE NEW MAN !

There is God, and there is man. Best if we don't confound the two;

Eph 2:15b [the context is Jew and Gentile, both Nations of mere men]
for to make in himself of twain one new man.

John 3:28-31
Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease. He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

Do you not believe Jesus is Lord of both Heaven and earth? The quick and the dead?

there is wrath upon even one sin (Adam only sinned once in order to be condemned )

Also, since when is Adam 'condemned'?
Where is this Scriptural?

 

[cygnusx1]

Who are the sons of God is the context.

Luke 3:38
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Once a son always a son, no?

No more than Satan and those fallen angels.

"sons of God" is used in Job 1:6 and 2:1 to describe angels



Genesis 6:1-4 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

I just did. Here, let me get my megaphone.

Rom 8:14
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

context determines meaning , salvation by faith is the context . You think Adam was saved by Christ ? where is the evidence ?

Gen 2:19
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

meaning ?

------------------

Acts 2:39
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

The truth of the Gospel is to the Jew and his offspring .

Gen 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

meaning mankind with a prophetic testimony of Christ .

--------------------

Gen 3:21
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Ex 40:13
And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest's office.

Heb 9:22
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

what is it random scripture quotation week ???

What does this mean, if not holy and blameless before Him in Love?

Eph 1:9-10
Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Does not 'brethren' denote fellowship in the Holy Spirit?

still no substance to Adam being elect or even saved .

Are we not all 'brethren' in the Lord?

There is God, and there is man. Best if we don't confound the two;

Eph 2:15b [the context is Jew and Gentile, both Nations of mere men]
for to make in himself of twain one new man.

yes , one new man , Christ being head of both Jew and Gentile , no Adam mentioned once again.

John 3:28-31
Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease. He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

Do you not believe Jesus is Lord of both Heaven and earth? The quick and the dead?

are you a secret universalist ?

Also, since when is Adam 'condemned'?
Where is this Scriptural?

condemnation is a punishment for sin , Adam was punished and sentenced from Gods presence , he was banished. hardly the same as being saved !


So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. (Romans 5:18)

For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:21-22)

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Pinkman, there is no such word as "Calvinist" in the bible. Please stop calling it Calvinism or Calvinists. The biblical teaching of God's sovereignty, election, predestination, and eternal security is biblical and true. It is not "Calvinism." Calvin didn't event new biblical truths. He discovered old biblical truths that had been hidden by apostate Christianity (Roman Catholic church and the like).

Well said!

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

More specifically, he elaborated on them.

No, he systematized what had been there all along.

Discovery of biblical truths is by one's own interpretation.

Discovery probably wasn't the choicest of words...Calvin was but an instrument used by God. But if you read the context of what Chris said, "old biblical truths", we're not talking about any "new" discovery, nor is there an implication that it occurred by the will of Calvin the man, but God the Holy Spirit taught him, even as God the Holy Spirit teaches us.

Calvin wanted us to follow his example, not to follow his interpretation (like the Catholic church did with their followers).

Where in Calvin's writings does he say to follow his example or is that just your interpretation of his intended meaning? Quite frankly, I believe Calvin would say "follow Christ, not me", "follow the example of Christ, for I am just a man."

It is impossible for a man's doctrine to be 100% correct, even with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

I have to kindly disagree, and put it in other terms. It is impossible for a man to comprehend God's doctrine 100%. I do believe the Apostle Paul taught in Scripture 100% correct doctrine. Whether or not we interpret it 100% correctly depends on a number of things, primarily God the Holy Spirit.

We must build upon the doctrine, but do it with caution. Full revelation is not given to man until the appointed time which is sometime from now. Hence, everything revealed until now is in bits and pieces and it's up to man to solve the puzzle until God intervenes to do it for us.

For clearification, there is a difference between 100% correct, and knowing 100%. I can know pieces of the whole puzzle 100%, while being almost completely ignorant of other pieces. For example, one may be 100% correct concerning soteriology, but only 50% correct concerning eschatology. On that note, I will confess to being 50% ignorant concerning eschatology, it's not been an area of focus for me, but I also have not formed a dogmatic position either, I mean a position of studied confidence.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I'd like to see Calvinists define their beliefs too, but so far all I see is them declaring their views the only Biblical ones. How about some definitions, since everybody allegedly misunderstands their teachings?

All of the Reformed confessions help provide definition. I would have to say the "Doctrines of Grace" (TULIP) and the Five Solas of the Reformation are the heart of Calvinism, with Covenant Theology being the heartbeat. These have all been defined, explained long ago, I mean historically by the Council of Orange, Canons of Dordt, etc. Personally I always prefer firsthand resources to random people on the internet (for the specifics), not that a random person cannot have any influence, at least in inspiring a journey of learning.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

The real question is, would you even be persuaded if they did? Considering your presuppositions towards Calvinism, I highly doubt it.

Winner, sadly this is the ugly truth. And YES Calvinists have presuppositions, we do! However, most Calvinists I've encountered came from a set of Arminian presuppositions. You know what they say, hindsight is 20/20.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Thanks... do all the Calvinists agree with this statement though?

I will say this, all Calvinists are 5-pointers. There is no such thing as a 4-point Calvinist, a confused individual perhaps. Though there are disagreements on the finer theological details, we agree in the broadest sense of terms. In other words, the more simple the definition, the more agreement, the more explained and defined, the more opportunity for disagreement. It's not as though Calvinists all have to be in 100% agreement to be Calvinists or hold to what is called "Calvinism". It is perfectly fine to have disagreements, for one thing, different people are at different points in their learning and understanding. Personally I prefer the term "Reformed" because it is broader and does not refer to an individual. On that note, I am and ever will be a Christian first, Protestant second, and Reformed third. This is kind of like defining a "Christian". In my mind, Christianity is divided into three major categories: Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox. But this doesn't begin to describe the variety of Christians and variety of beliefs, and yes, I believe there are Christians in all three categories, not that everyone in every category is (has been) a Christian.

 

[Eleiou]

Harold who ?

Anyway. A hyper Calvinist (generally, they do differ a bit) is someone who believes God predestined Adam to sin and also anyone else. IE surpralapsarianism. Also double predestination.

Non hypers hold to infralapsaianism i.e God did not predestine Adam to sin. God did predestine all who would be saved but passed over those that would not. I.e single predestination.

Hypers believe that Total depravity means total inability. Total wretchedness towards God. Non hypers soften this a bit and say it means one is totally affected. I have been to lectures where the non-hyper gives his views, on question time he often backtracks and gets into a mess. Another example is the book "Chosen by God" by R C Sproul. The first few chapters are about total inability of man towards God. Chapter six he back tracks saying all men have equal chance but it is his freewill to rebel. Unlike what Dordt says.

This is why I have an issue with the non-hyper school of thought.

Hypers are hard line. Non hypers are not. IMHO

FWIW......... a supralapsarian Reformed Christian is not a hyper-calvinist but all hyper's are supers. Boettner would be a good read.

 

[Pinkman]

I will say this, all Calvinists are 5-pointers. There is no such thing as a 4-point Calvinist, a confused individual perhaps. Though there are disagreements on the finer theological details, ....

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.

 

[Pinkman]

All of the Reformed confessions help provide definition. I would have to say the "Doctrines of Grace" (TULIP) and the Five Solas of the Reformation are the heart of Calvinism, with Covenant Theology being the heartbeat. ....Personally I always prefer firsthand resources to random people on the internet (for the specifics), not that a random person cannot have any influence, at least in inspiring a journey of learning.

Would not the Bible not be THE firsthand resource ?I

I believe a major part of division between Calvinists ( Even 4 pointers, yep there are lots) and non Calvinists is the reference to Dordt alot rather the the Bible.

In fact the most divisive point it seems is not Adam and how he came to fall but his offspring the rest of humanity.

We are all born from Adam and tarred with his sin. So God not only created sin (if not the who did), but also enforced the situation where all babies - even while in their mothers womb - sinned profusely. Its very odd. A baby could not choose which president to vote for but could choose the most serious of choices about his destiny.

Although Dord gets mentioned a lot it does not clear up the biggest misunderstanding. That is, God made man, pre chose who would get saved and who would not. Ok so far - not nice - but understandable. Then God holds all those who are not saved responsible for God's own actions. How come ? God made them not saved so God is responsible. Is he sovereign or not ?

This is why I prefer Calvin on this subject as he does not quiver from the outcome of the terrible decree. He states it as bold as brass. Prints it in his book and publishes it. Seems to me a lot of Calvinist do not understand this no matter how many points they hold to.

Actually I think they do understand but cannot hold the position in a debate. Hence waffle around it leading do so much debate and division.

 

[Pinkman]

.........
Yeah. When people are offensive, people will naturally take offense. My opinion is that simple terms aren't enough to dissuade people from assuming that their view is best. They'll continue on down their merry path to destruction without a thought in the world.

What was it Jesus said? "If they don't listen to God's words, they won't listen even if someone who came back from the dead."

You can certainly make the obvious case. It's entirely accessible to anyone who stops to think about it. But since few stop to think, that accessibility will be quite clearly stamped on.

Sounds like the world of today.

 

[AndOne]

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

What does this have to do with anything that is being discussed? I don't quite get this. It doesn't even have anything to do with the quote you replied to.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

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.