Understanding Calvinism

[Pinkman]

Hi HeyMikey80 and Cygnus1x

My position from my youth to "Gods sovereignty vs Man responsibility” was ‘what nonsense’. No God is sovereign AND responsible. This always generated its not fair/author of sin type responses. My position was – ‘get used to it, it’s the way it is’.

Now much older but NOT wiser, I very much doubt all of that. We humans always go wrong - yes -but did God force us to be ‘Total Depraved' ( i.e no one chose to be born in Adam) ? I no longer think so. Not that I can reconcile things. History proves we humans do keep on messing up.


“Calvinism is identified and scoped differently from the popular mindset.”
“….outside what Calvinism has already knowingly rejected”

My belief is that a lot of Calvinist do not really understand Calvinism. I have debated with many and my general conclusion ( not wanting to be rude) is they are a confused and inconsistent lot which has made me more perplexed over the years.



A question that has often been posed on this board is

“If God created the reprobate and denied him any chance of salvation. How can God then hold the reprobate responsible for God’s own decision.”

Many Calvinists have responded with ‘this is a gotcha question….’ and diverge.


I think the opposite. I think it is a valid question as asked by 4th century Augustinian monks right up to the present day. I have a feeling the ‘equal ultimacy’ concept might point to a solution.

Could either of you post a shed load more stuff on "equal ultimacy" and "High and Moderate Calvinism". My conviction is that this could help get shot of a load of misconception for a lot of people. Certainly for me as I have never considered either concept.

 

[heymikey80]

Hi HeyMikey80 and Cygnus1x

My position from my youth to "Gods sovereignty vs Man responsibility” was ‘what nonsense’. No God is sovereign AND responsible. This always generated its not fair/author of sin type responses. My position was – ‘get used to it, it’s the way it is’.

Now much older but NOT wiser, I very much doubt all of that. We humans always go wrong - yes -but did God force us to be ‘Total Depraved' ( i.e no one chose to be born in Adam) ? I no longer think so. Not that I can reconcile things. History proves we humans do keep on messing up.

Exactly where did this "God forced" come from? Cite one Calvinist who has said this.

“Calvinism is identified and scoped differently from the popular mindset.”
“….outside what Calvinism has already knowingly rejected”

My belief is that a lot of Calvinist do not really understand Calvinism. I have debated with many and my general conclusion ( not wanting to be rude) is they are a confused and inconsistent lot which has made me more perplexed over the years.

I believe the issue is over the mindset of Calvinism not be adopted, but attempts to adapt it to other viewpoints, all of which fail at points.

The result is indeed confusion and inconsistency, as well as perplexity.

A question that has often been posed on this board is

“If God created the reprobate and denied him any chance of salvation. How can God then hold the reprobate responsible for God’s own decision.”

The ambiguity here is the statement of "chance". Everyone has an opportunity to achieve salvation, through works -- but their own wills refuse to behave, being corrupted. But sure, people are in a position to avoid every sin thrown at them. They have opportunity. They just have no will to take advantage of the opportunity.

Many Calvinists have responded with ‘this is a gotcha question….’ and diverge.

And it is. Equivocation on the word "chance" is a facile point to demonstrate.

I think the opposite. I think it is a valid question as asked by 4th century Augustinian monks right up to the present day. I have a feeling the ‘equal ultimacy’ concept might point to a solution.

The rejection of equal ultimacy in Calvinism would point to the solution being outside of equal ultimacy.

Could either of you post a shed load more stuff on "equal ultimacy" and "High and Moderate Calvinism". My conviction is that this could help get shot of a load of misconception for a lot of people. Certainly for me as I have never considered either concept.

Given that the bible teaches both election and particularism, we cannot avoid the subject of double predestination. The question then is not if predestination is double, but how it is double. There are different views of double predestion. One of them is so frightening that many shun altogether the use of the term double predestion. This scary view is called equal ultimacy, and is based on a symmetrical view of predestion. It sees a symmetry between the work of God in election and his work in reporbation. It seeks and exact balance between the two. Just as God intervenes in the lives of the elect to create faith in their hearts, so he similarly intervenes in the hearts of the reporbate to work unbelief. The later in inferred from biblical passages that speak of God's hardening people's hearts.

Classical Reformed theology rejects the doctrine of equal ultimacy. Though some have labeled this doctrine "hyper-Calvinism" I perfer to call it "sub-Calvinism," or even more precisely, "anti-Calvinism." Though Calvinism certainly holds to a kind of double predestination, it does not embrace equal ultimacy. The Reformed view makes a crucial distinction between God's positive and negitive decrees. God positively decrees the election of some and he negatibely decrees the reprobation of others. The difference between positive and negative does not refer to the outcome (though the outcome indeed is either positive or negitive), but to the manner by which God brings his decrees to pass in history.

The postive side refers to God's active intervention in the lives of the elect to work faith in their hearts. The negative refers, not to God's working unbelief in the hearts of the reporbate, but simply to his passing them by and withholding his regenerating grace from them. -- R.C. Sproul, "What is Reformed Theology?"

 

[Pinkman]

Hi Heymikey80

I am going to post a few separate answers but if they are not relevant side step them. The bottom line I am sure is "equal ultmacy" OR not.

Exactly where did this "God forced" come from? Cite one Calvinist who has said this.

I hear this all of the time. No one chose to be born. If anyone had a choice they would not have chosen to be born in Adam with the consequences.

John Calvin "I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, all of
Adam's children have fallen by God's will."

No choice for the human but to have been born 'fallen'.

This is the big one which I think causes the big divisions.

 

[Pinkman]

I believe the issue is over the mindset of Calvinism not be adopted, but attempts to adapt it to other viewpoints, all of which fail at points.

The result is indeed confusion and inconsistency, as well as perplexity.

I fully understand the perplexity bit. Don't think I am alone on this. Hence I would like to see a precis of Calvinism that you expound. Short and simple. I think Dordt is to long. Hope that does not make me arrogant.

 

[Pinkman]

The ambiguity here is the statement of "chance". Everyone has an opportunity to achieve salvation, through works -- but their own wills refuse to behave, being corrupted. But sure, people are in a position to avoid every sin thrown at them. They have opportunity. They just have no will to take advantage of the opportunity.

Why is it "their own wills refuse to behave" ? Surly it is because God did not make them that way. They were born as you say 'corrupted'. They could not do otherwise. Fixed outcome.

No no no no. They could not have had the 'opportunity to achieve salvation by works '. That is pure pelagian is it not ?

 

[Pinkman]

Classical Reformed theology rejects the doctrine of equal ultimacy. Though some have labeled this doctrine "hyper-Calvinism" I perfer to call it "sub-Calvinism," or even more precisely, "anti-Calvinism." Though Calvinism certainly holds to a kind of double predestination, it does not embrace equal ultimacy. .....

The postive side refers to God's active intervention in the lives of the elect to work faith in their hearts. The negative refers, not to God's working unbelief in the hearts of the reporbate, but simply to his passing them by and withholding his regenerating grace from them.[/COLOR] -- R.C. Sproul, "What is Reformed Theology?"

When did he pass them by ? before the foundation of the world ?


I am not meaning to be thick but I am lost now. Sorry. Please expand on 'Though Calvinism certainly holds to a kind of double predestination, it does not embrace equal ultimacy.'

 

[rturner76]

You're born elect or you're not. Just like you're born Noble or you're not. People were already thinking of themselves as equal to Priests. You can't have people running around thinking we are born the same as say, a Noble. Stay in your place You're not Noble. You are non-elect. See the parallel? I think it's obvious. Why did he have the respect of all the Nobility? He made sure people understood to their very soul that people are born to a certain station in life.

What if you are baptized, saved and yet sin? You are washed clean of your sin? If your elect? If you are baptized and yet sin you are doomed? If you are non-elect.

Hogwash! Faith which is freely given to all! Not just YOU!

 

[heymikey80]

Hi Heymikey80

I am going to post a few separate answers but if they are not relevant side step them. The bottom line I am sure is "equal ultmacy" OR not.

Exactly where did this "God forced" come from? Cite one Calvinist who has said this.

I hear this all of the time. No one chose to be born. If anyone had a choice they would not have chosen to be born in Adam with the consequences.

John Calvin "I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, all of
Adam's children have fallen by God's will."

No choice for the human but to have been born 'fallen'.

This is the big one which I think causes the big divisions.

I take it you're not finding a Calvinist who said, "God forced". Let's hear it from a citation, then, or set it aside.

People are all fallen. Certainly Dordt states that everyone has been plunged into this common misery by their own desires.

It's also true that God ordained -- a specific term, and an indirect one -- ordained that people would fall and be undeserving of salvation.

Both are true. God has built humanity in such a way that they have become corrupt. There's no escaping this fact, as God's verdict is already declared in the Law, cited by Paul in Romans 3:9ff. We're undeserving of eternal life because we're sinful people, and that's demonstrated by the fact that we all sin.

Adam brought about this situation. Mankind is uniformly alienated from God due to human action.

So ... you're saying this is bad? Yep, it's bad. People did it themselves.

"the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves;"

So -- are you saying that it's unfair for God to permit humans to bring humans into existence while in a particular status before God?

 

[heymikey80]

The ambiguity here is the statement of "chance". Everyone has an opportunity to achieve salvation, through works -- but their own wills refuse to behave, being corrupted. But sure, people are in a position to avoid every sin thrown at them. They have opportunity. They just have no will to take advantage of the opportunity.

Why is it "their own wills refuse to behave" ? Surly it is because God did not make them that way. They were born as you say 'corrupted'. They could not do otherwise. Fixed outcome.

I'm pretty sure you can figure that out from Genesis 3? God didn't start out making Adam that way. A Fall intervened, and through the operation of the will of Adam and Eve, both.

No no no no. They could not have had the 'opportunity to achieve salvation by works '. That is pure pelagian is it not ?

The problem is the corruption of the will, not the ability for some pure, sentient being to accomplish the good with good intent and in a good way. And no, that's not Pelagianism. Pelagianism expects people to be purified so that they accomplish salvation in this way. But no one is purified this way.

 

[heymikey80]

I believe the issue is over the mindset of Calvinism not be adopted, but attempts to adapt it to other viewpoints, all of which fail at points.

The result is indeed confusion and inconsistency, as well as perplexity.

I fully understand the perplexity bit. Don't think I am alone on this. Hence I would like to see a precis of Calvinism that you expound. Short and simple. I think Dordt is to long. Hope that does not make me arrogant.

Well good luck finding a shorter statement. Calvinism is based on a different, an older view of responsibility than exists in modern popular thought: the idea that what people intend to do is subject to moral judgment, not simply what people are allowed and do.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Calvinism is garbage

Stop, right there. How would you like it if a Christian were to say the Methodist denomination is garbage? I don't think you would like it one bit, and I doubt you would be inclined to turn the other cheek. If you really wanted to engage Calvinists because you care about us, you have definitely started on the wrong foot starting the discussion with disdain and disrespect. If this were a formal discussion, it would be considered ad hom.

and anyone who believes it should be called a "Calvian" instead of a Christian.

Right, right, and by the same token, we'll just call you a Wesleyian instead of a Christian...feels good doesn't it? Why can you not accept the fact we're both Christians with different understandings of the finer points of Theology? Do you feel threatened by Calvinists? I am curious, why the sour grapes?

There is no need for Jesus to give us commandments while he was here because the elect would already have it in their hearts to follow God's law and accept Jesus' sacrifice.

While you might think that is the logical end, and while it might be for hard determinism, the logical end you come to makes no sense, is neither taught, nor implied, nor considered biblical by Calvinists like Johnathan Edwards whom held a compatibilist view of the Sovereignty of God and human freedom. If you believe God is all knowing and you believe in predestination, as taught in the Scriptures, then we're not that far apart brother. Do you not believe that God knows everyone that will be saved and everyone that will be damned? Do you not believe that He had this knowledge before anyone was created or born?

No man you got to be a follower people. Put your shoes on and make a choice. There is absolutely no chapter that deals with this predestination crap and Calvin describes it but there are full chapter dedicated to how faith works in your life and for your salvation.

No chapter that deals with predestination? In the Scriptures? Have you never read ROMANS Chapter 9 or Ephesians Chapter 1?

I know you can't help how you were raised so I'm not saying you are bad people or less intelligent. Just misinformed and misguided by a guy long gone who did his best but missed the mark on his theology.

Most Calvinists I know of, like myself, were not raised nor taught Reformed theology growing up, nor had parents with a Reformed understanding of Scripture. My parents brought me to Arminian Baptist and Assembly of God Churches growing up. My beliefs lined up with Assembly of God up until I was 28-29 years old. Apart from Christ, without God the Holy Spirit working in and through me, I am a bad person, even if in my heart and mind, and I struggle daily fighting the good fight of faith. I may be less intelligent, and that is fine, everyone is not on or at the same level of intelligence, and intelligence alone doesn't mean much. I would prefer wisdom over intelligence, and child like faith, and love for God and neighbor. As to being misinformed, John Wesley is long gone as well, as is James Arminius.

Does that answer the op question?

Not even close, if at first you don't succeed...

 

[heymikey80]

"elect"/"election" are Scriptural concepts.
"predestination" is a Scriptural concept.
universal undeservedness is Scriptural.
Unmerited favor is Scriptural.

Calvinism is Paulinism. Therefore, it's Scriptural.

 

[Pinkman]

I take it you're not finding a Calvinist who said, "God forced". Let's hear it from a citation, then, or set it aside.

People are all fallen. Certainly Dordt states that everyone has been plunged into this common misery by their own desires.

It's also true that God ordained -- a specific term, and an indirect one -- ordained that people would fall and be undeserving of salvation.

Both are true. God has built humanity in such a way that they have become corrupt. There's no escaping this fact, as God's verdict is already declared in the Law, cited by Paul in Romans 3:9ff. We're undeserving of eternal life because we're sinful people, and that's demonstrated by the fact that we all sin.

Adam brought about this situation. Mankind is uniformly alienated from God due to human action.

So ... you're saying this is bad? Yep, it's bad. People did it themselves.

"the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves;"

So -- are you saying that it's unfair for God to permit humans to bring humans into existence while in a particular status before God?

I am not saying any thing about the fair/unfair issue.

Adam and Eve sinned by their own free will, fine.

All other humans descended from Adam and Eve and were born in sin. It seems to me God is responsible for that. No one chose to be born and if they did I doubt they would of chosen to be born in sin. So how can they be responsible for something they had no control over ?

I am not saying anything about election of some and not other, nor anything about 'fairness' or how not nice it is. My confusion is about responsibility and it seems to me God is responsible for making things the way they are. For whatever reason he wanted to.

It not that the reprobate has no chance to be saved. He has no option.

 

[Pinkman]

Well good luck finding a shorter statement. Calvinism is based on a different, an older view of responsibility than exists in modern popular thought:.....

Can you post some more on this please.

 

[cygnusx1]

I am not saying any thing about the fair/unfair issue.

Adam and Eve sinned by their own free will, fine.

All other humans descended from Adam and Eve and were born in sin. It seems to me God is responsible for that. No one chose to be born and if they did I doubt they would of chosen to be born in sin. So how can they be responsible for something they had no control over ?

I am not saying anything about election of some and not other, nor anything about 'fairness' or how not nice it is. My confusion is about responsibility and it seems to me God is responsible for making things the way they are. For whatever reason he wanted to.

It not that the reprobate has no chance to be saved. He has no option.

by the same token how can a nation be blessed or even punished if God is constrained to view and judge things only on a "one to one" basis ?

The answer is God views things as groups , and He also takes very seriously representatives acting on behalf of that group , if He didn't salvation could not be possible and it wouldn't be corporate . Christ laid down His life for His "body" His "bride" , His Church , acting on her behalf from sheer love.

The reprobate is left to his fallen devices after the Lord has several times witnessed to him , he rejects the truth , he holds it in suppression , the reprobate works very hard for his wages , he is FAR from an innocent victim.

 

[Pinkman]

by the same token how can a nation be blessed or even punished if God is constrained to view and judge things only on a "one to one" basis ?

The answer is God views things as groups , and He also takes very seriously representatives acting on behalf of that group , if He didn't salvation could not be possible and it wouldn't be corporate . Christ laid down His life for His "body" His "bride" , His Church , acting on her behalf from sheer love.

The reprobate is left to his fallen devices after the Lord has several times witnessed to him , he rejects the truth , he holds it in suppression , the reprobate works very hard for his wages , he is FAR from an innocent victim.

OK makes a lot of sense to me. BUT where and when did the Lord witness to the reprobate ? I'm not picking fault, I don't yet get it.

 

[Pinkman]

Pinkman
Might be that you are being messed around. You quoted John Calvin. Surely that is enough.

? Please continue.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

"elect"/"election" are Scriptural concepts.
"predestination" is a Scriptural concept.
universal undeservedness is Scriptural.
Unmerited favor is Scriptural.

Calvinism is Paulinism. Therefore, it's Scriptural.

 

[rturner76]

"elect"/"election" are Scriptural concepts.
"predestination" is a Scriptural concept.
universal undeservedness is Scriptural.
Unmerited favor is Scriptural.

Calvinism is Paulinism. Therefore, it's Scriptural.

Predestination is not at all dealt with the way Calvin does
elect/and election was twisted by Calvin grossly

universal undeservedness is scriptural
unmerited favor is Grace, hardly a Calvin concept

Calvinism is Calvinism Therefore it is NOT scriptural
It is a misinterpretation of scripture, it's a word play.

You believed and turned away, you lost your salvation, you returned like the prodical son and gained your inheritance
You believed and turned away, you never attained salvation, you returned like the prodical son, oh wait a minnit, you did have salvation in the first place???

Please show me some of Jesus' teachings about TOTAL depravity.

 

[Pinkman]

by the same token how can a nation be blessed or even punished if God is constrained to view and judge things only on a "one to one" basis ?

The answer is God views things as groups , and He also takes very seriously representatives acting on behalf of that group , if He didn't salvation could not be possible and it wouldn't be corporate . Christ laid down His life for His "body" His "bride" , His Church , acting on her behalf from sheer love.

The reprobate is left to his fallen devices after the Lord has several times witnessed to him , he rejects the truth , he holds it in suppression , the reprobate works very hard for his wages , he is FAR from an innocent victim.

Hi Cygnusx1

Just a few more thoughts.

1. The thief on the cross. surely a one to one basis.

2. Not sure I understand corporate salvation. However 'the bride' as you have mention sounds to me like something worth amplifying.

3. I do not get when the Lord witnessed to the reprobate although it is an idea I have never thought of and sounds good. Surley it must be after the baby reaches an age where it 'knows' it is doing wrong.

What do you think ?