Value and Necessity of Truth

[Salesian]

Hello,

This is my first post here. I was really hoping to get into a discussion with a few Reformed/Calvinists on this topic. The one's I know of close to home are "off limits" for different reasons, so here I am on the internet.

I'll start with this question:

Do you believe that the view of God's providence and how He works in individual people, that view set forth in the Westminster Confession, supported with many Bible passages, and commonly known as the "5 points of Calvinism" are true? That is, do you believe that the Scriptures truly teach the Calvinist soteriology?

Yes, I'm going somewhere with this, but I wanted to be sure it is worth continuing. If you don't believe the Bible teaches it, then there's nothing further to discuss. Obviously, this is a Reformed Forum, so I expect most of you will believe it to be Biblical and true.

-Rob

 

[inchristalone221]

Let me be the first to say that I believe the 5 points of Calvinism are taught in scripture.

Let me now be the first to clarify: I do not put the doctrines of grace on the same level as the gospel. The five points are not the gospel, but they help to clarify the gospel. In short, they give the best answers to the most questions.

 

[Salesian]

Ok, well maybe more will respond soon,

But going on the understanding, like yours inchristalone, that it is true, then it is taught by Jesus, correct? Jesus, Who is the way,the truth, and the life. Jesus, Who was born to bear witness to the truth (John 18:37).

The next question is, and this is the last "runner-up" type question, is:

Is a rejection of truth, at least when presented with it, a rejection of Jesus Christ?

Mainly, religious truth is the topic. Religious truth that has been carefully thought through and proven from Scripture and reason. Obviously I'm not referring to truths about Mars' surface and things like that. No, these are truths that I'm sure we all believe that we can know and trust as true, truths of a religious and faith nature.

 

[jonas3]

Let me now be the first to clarify: I do not put the doctrines of grace on the same level as the gospel. The five points are not the gospel, but they help to clarify the gospel.

What is the gospel?

 

[jonas3]

Is a rejection of truth, at least when presented with it, a rejection of Jesus Christ?

Well, what is this "truth" that you are presenting, and then we'll see if rejecting it is the same as rejecting Jesus Christ.

-jonas

 

[AndOne]

Hello,

This is my first post here. I was really hoping to get into a discussion with a few Reformed/Calvinists on this topic. The one's I know of close to home are "off limits" for different reasons, so here I am on the internet.

I'll start with this question:

Do you believe that the view of God's providence and how He works in individual people, that view set forth in the Westminster Confession, supported with many Bible passages, and commonly known as the "5 points of Calvinism" are true? That is, do you believe that the Scriptures truly teach the Calvinist soteriology?

Yes, I'm going somewhere with this, but I wanted to be sure it is worth continuing. If you don't believe the Bible teaches it, then there's nothing further to discuss. Obviously, this is a Reformed Forum, so I expect most of you will believe it to be Biblical and true.

-Rob

Yes I believe that the 5-points are taught in scripture. However - let me clarify something. Of the five points I only believe that two are essential to believe in regards to salvation. Those two being "Total Depravity" and "Perseverence of the Saints" - or what I refer to as eternal security.

In other words - though I hold to all five points personally I will not part ways with Christians who do not hold to "unconditional election," "limited atonement," or "irrisistable grace." Though I believe they are all true and scripturally supported - I do believe that one can be saved and not believe those three.

The other two areas are critical though - and I do not call any supposed Christian "brother" who does not believe them - since they are critical in understanding what salvation truly is.

For this discussion - I would also recommend the Canons of Dort vice the Westminster Confession as the primary reference - since it was in the Canons of Dort that competely and totally layed out the five points in greatest detail.

 

[Salesian]

For this discussion - I would also recommend the Canons of Dort vice the Westminster Confession as the primary reference - since it was in the Canons of Dort that competely and totally layed out the five points in greatest detail.

Yes, good point Behe's Boy. The meeting at Dort against the Remonstrants and the document from that meeting has the 5 points expressed fairly well.

Probably there would be no "5 points of Calvinism" were it not for the "5 points of Armenianism."

 

[Salesian]

Well, what is this "truth" that you are presenting, and then we'll see if rejecting it is the same as rejecting Jesus Christ.

-jonas

Jonas and others,

I'm sure more members will chime in eventually, but they can catch up if they wish.

I'm just wanting to ask a question, or a series of questions around one central topic. Not to debate about Calvinism necessarily. Maybe it will turn into that, but I don't want to lead it that way.

What I'm getting at is this:

If indeed the way the "doctrines of grace" known as the "Calvinistic/Dort 5-Points" correctly define the way in which God providentially works in man through Christ to save him, would it not, then, be a rejection of Christ to reject that system known and taught as the "Calvinistic/Dort doctrines of grace." I'm not referring to people who haven't heard about such doctrines and how it all works together. I'm referring to your Catholic, Armenian/Evangelical, etc. buddies who think you are in error for believing such a system.

Already, we have one person who says only the 1st and 5th are necessary for salvation, but that those 2 are necessary. Why, if they are so plainly taught in Scripture, as I'm sure most of you believe, would it be permissible to comprimise on the other 3? Unconditional Election, wow, that's majorly important, isn't it?!! That Christ died for sinners, and that we are predistined to receive the adoption into God's kindgom not because of any good that God foresaw or planned for us to do, but because of His free choice.

I realize that's just Behe's Boy's personal opinion. Sorry to single you out like that, but you see what I'm saying?

 

[Salesian]

Why, if they are so plainly taught in Scripture, as I'm sure most of you believe, would it be permissible to comprimise on the other 3?

Perhaps a more practical question is this:

If there is comprimise made on how one understands the nature of God's bringing salvation to man, then why then, cannot there be comprimise made on "lesser" issues such as infant baptism, women's role in ministry, divorce/remarriage, church government, the Lord's Supper, etc?

Surely, at least where I went to church as a Calvinist, it was set forth strongly that to deny the Calvinistic 5-points was to undermine the essential fact of "divine monergism" in our salvation, and thus to insert ourselves in the equation of salvation to an extent that will lead to error in other areas of belief.

I'm not meaning to lean too much on Behe's Boy's statement. But, it seems that at least, those posting so far do not esteem the calvinistic system as being necessary to believe completely, once one is presented with it. Except maybe Jonas3, he/she is cautiously holding out until he knows what it is I'm getting at, which is fine.

 

[jonas3]

Jonas and others,

I'm sure more members will chime in eventually, but they can catch up if they wish.

I'm just wanting to ask a question, or a series of questions around one central topic. Not to debate about Calvinism necessarily. Maybe it will turn into that, but I don't want to lead it that way.

What I'm getting at is this:

If indeed the way the "doctrines of grace" known as the "Calvinistic/Dort 5-Points" correctly define the way in which God providentially works in man through Christ to save him, would it not, then, be a rejection of Christ to reject that system known and taught as the "Calvinistic/Dort doctrines of grace." I'm not referring to people who haven't heard about such doctrines and how it all works together. I'm referring to your Catholic, Armenian/Evangelical, etc. buddies who think you are in error for believing such a system.

For starters, I am NOT a "Calvinist". The gospel is God's promise to save His people conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone. All who do not believe this gospel are LOST (i.e. unregenerate), AS IT IS WRITTEN,

“3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” – 2Cor 4:3-4

This would include ALL Catholics, and Arminians. Every single one of them is UNREGENERATE. Why? Because they both believe that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception thereby conditioning their salvation upon themselves and not on the finished work of Christ alone. Furthermore, all who say that all Catholics and Arminians are NOT lost actually show themselves to be unregenerate as well (this would include most Calvinist). Why? Because they must believe then that the Catholic/Arminian belief in universal atonement doesn't show them to not be of the Christian faith; thereby, making the claim that one can believe in universal atonement and still be of the Christian faith, which is a blasphemy against the true Jesus Christ of the Bible.

Christians NEVER condition their salvation upon themselves, and every single Christian believes that they ARE saved because of the work of Jesus Christ alone for His people alone. That pretty much sums up the so called "5-points".

Please read: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/gospatone.htm

-jonas

 

[Salesian]

For starters, I am NOT a "Calvinist".

Ok, I'm sorry if you don't like labels such as that. You come across as a Calvinist though, in the rest of your post.

The gospel is God's promise to save His people conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone. All who do not believe this gospel are LOST (i.e. unregenerate), AS IT IS WRITTEN,

“3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” – 2Cor 4:3-4

This would include ALL Catholics, and Arminians. Every single one of them is UNREGENERATE. Why? Because they both believe that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception thereby conditioning their salvation upon themselves and not on the finished work of Christ alone.

Well, thanks for honestly answering what I'm getting at. So you don't believe that a person can be saved who denies the 5-points of Calvinism.

Furthermore, all who say that all Catholics and Arminians are NOT lost actually show themselves to be unregenerate as well (this would include most Calvinist). Why? Because they must believe then that the Catholic/Arminian belief in universal atonement doesn't show them to not be of the Christian faith; thereby, making the claim that one can believe in universal atonement and still be of the Christian faith, which is a blasphemy against the true Jesus Christ of the Bible.

Please show where Catholics believe in an "universal atonement." Arminians I'm not worried about. I should say, though, that when I was a "church of Christ" Arminian, I certainly did not believe in an "universal atonement.

Personally, I think the anathemas of Trent and the defined dogma of "No Salvation Outside the Church" is enough to prove that we don't believe in an "universal atonement" in the way I understand you to mean it. Maybe I misunderstand you.

It's very likely you mean our belief, against the Jansenist propositions, that Christ's death was meritorious, potentially, for all people.

It is a condemned proposition, that is, a Catholic cannot believe the following:

Christ gave Himself for us as an oblation to God, not for the elect only, but for all the faithful only.

December 7, 1690, Pope Alexander VIII wrote against that and several other pernicuous errors of the Jansenists. I'm surprised, it's like, you read about the Jansenists, and some beliefs are so similar to Calvinists, it's remarkable! That's in Denzinger's "Sources of Catholic Dogma" # 1294 in my edition.

Christians NEVER condition their salvation upon themselves, and every single Christian believes that they ARE saved because of the work of Jesus Christ alone for His people alone. That pretty much sums up the so called "5-points".

Please read:
-jonas

Ok, I'll read that. I've opened it up. Thanks.

I know, I said this thread is not to debate Calvinism. But I thought it's only fair to try to clear you up on the Catholic view a little.

We also believe that supernatural faith is required for salvation. You may be interested to know this, both of these propositions, among others, were condemned under Pope Innocent XI, March 4, 1679:

1) Assent to faith is supernatural and useful to salvation with only the probable knowledge of revelation, even with the fear by which one fears lest God has not spoken. (Denz # 1171)

2) Faith widely so called according to the testimony of creature or by a similar reason suffices for justification. (Denz. # 1173)

That is, those 2 things above are wrong. A Catholic must believe that supernatural faith, given by God, is necessary for salvation. It's not a Calvinistic belief, it's a Catholic belief!

 

[Salesian]

Jonas3,

Thanks for answering the question though. It shows that you value your particular view as being necessary for salvation.

It's consistent. If you believe that Christ demands obedience, that we take every thought captive, well then, that which we can know for sure in regards to salvation, surely it's required, at least after we've been confronted with it.

You may not want to be called a calvinist. Ok, I won't call you that.

-Rob

 

[jonas3]

Please show where Catholics believe in an "universal atonement."

Ahh, yes, Catholics believe in universal atonement. That, among many other heretical doctrines, shows them be ignorant of the gospel. However, please know that most "Calvinist" believe just as many heretical things, and most "Calvinist" believe that to believe in "universal atonement" isn't a big deal, so they are just as lost. Anyway,

"The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: "There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer." - CCC Paragraph 605

One thing you will notice with "Calvinist", is that they are NOT at all consistent. I'm sure you have found this to be the case.

-jonas

 

[CCWoody]

What I'm getting at is this:

If indeed the way the "doctrines of grace" known as the "Calvinistic/Dort 5-Points" correctly define the way in which God providentially works in man through Christ to save him, would it not, then, be a rejection of Christ to reject that system known and taught as the "Calvinistic/Dort doctrines of grace." I'm not referring to people who haven't heard about such doctrines and how it all works together. I'm referring to your Catholic, Armenian/Evangelical, etc. buddies who think you are in error for believing such a system.

Ah, I see where you are going. The question seems to be is it necessary to confess the 5-points of Calvinism to be saved.

Answer: No!

What you are referencing is actually a form of neo-gnosticism, whereby the correct form of knowledge is required to be saved. And, while the entire confessing Church used to be of the opinion that a right Trinitarian view is required to be saved, a view that I think it right even if Roman Catholics have abandoned that, it is not needed to completely confess the truth to be saved. Calvinism doesn't merely have 5 points. I don't know why the ones expressed by the Canons of Dordt need be more important than any of the others.

 

[Salesian]

Ahh, yes, Catholics believe in universal atonement. That, among many other heretical doctrines, shows them be ignorant of the gospel. However, please know that most "Calvinist" believe just as many heretical things, and most "Calvinist" believe that to believe in "universal atonement" isn't a big deal, so they are just as lost. Anyway,

"The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: "There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer." - CCC Paragraph 605

One thing you will notice with "Calvinist", is that they are NOT at all consistent. I'm sure you have found this to be the case.

-jonas

Ok, fair enough. With your view of "atonement" I see why you think that we believe that. Yes, we believe that Christ suffered and died for all people. We do not believe that all people are therefore "atoned for." No, like Calvinists (whom you are not among) believe, we understand that Redemption is applied to a person at a certain time in history.

Do you believe in an "invisible/visible" distinction? If you do, it would seem that you would believe that some graces were meted out for those in the visible church, but who are not in the invisible church. I realize you may not, but there are many that do believe that. There's even disagreement among Calvinists about I John 2:2, rather it refers to "universal grace to all the world" or just the elect. The article you linked to referred to that verse a couple times.

I believe, that within itself, the Calvinist view is consistent. That's not to say that Calvinists are consistent in all views together and application of them. That's what this thread is to discuss, in part.

 

[inchristalone221]

I disagree with Jonas at least in the following regard: I believe that believers who hold to the simple gospel will be saved, regardless of their opinion on the doctrines of grace. I also believe that it is impious to make judgements about the regenerate status or lack thereof in any person.

 

[Salesian]

Ah, I see where you are going. The question seems to be is it necessary to confess the 5-points of Calvinism to be saved.

Answer: No!

What you are referencing is actually a form of neo-gnosticism, whereby the correct form of knowledge is required to be saved. And, while the entire confessing Church used to be of the opinion that a right Trinitarian view is required to be saved, a view that I think it right even if Roman Catholics have abandoned that, it is not needed to completely confess the truth to be saved. Calvinism doesn't merely have 5 points. I don't know why the ones expressed by the Canons of Dordt need be more important than any of the others.

I kind of expected something like this to come up. Secret knowledge that must be believed to be saved. Nope, that's understandable, and I tried to be careful to condition the acceptance upon those who have been presented with the 5 points.

Yeah, I would hope that you don't believe a gnostic underground gospel. I know you don't. I'm getting more at what a person is actually knowledgeable of in order to positively reject.

The article that Jonas3 linked to is pretty good to set forth a forceful exhortation to not fall into believing that those who deny limited atonement can be saved. Right or wrong, it's a forceful exhortation.

We'll see, maybe tomorrow or the next day we can move deeper into the topic. To debate Calvinism though, hmmmm, not at this time. Not me at least. I'm nothing special to this forum, just another Catholic.

 

[AndOne]

Why, if they are so plainly taught in Scripture, as I'm sure most of you believe, would it be permissible to comprimise on the other 3? Unconditional Election, wow, that's majorly important, isn't it?!! That Christ died for sinners, and that we are predistined to receive the adoption into God's kindgom not because of any good that God foresaw or planned for us to do, but because of His free choice.

I realize that's just Behe's Boy's personal opinion. Sorry to single you out like that, but you see what I'm saying?

Most people have a very limited knowledge of scripture. Most people will never even pick up a Bible until after they become Christians to begin with. Can you see trying to explain limited atonement in the context of evangelism? It would go way above the non-believers head. What is import is explaining what salvation is - namely a free and unearned gift from God. Once a believer grasps that truth and is willing to embrace scripture - than explaining the other three points of grace can occur. For many - its just too difficult to grasp - and in my opinion thats understandable. I don't think its necessary to understand those things to be saved - what is necessary is understanding that grace is a free gift. If someone can't grasp the concept of God predestining some to salvation and others not - I don't have a problem with that. Those that understand the basic concept of salvation and receive it - fall into the category of the elect imo - just because they don't understand it or realize it doesn't mean it isn't the case.

 

[AndOne]

To debate Calvinism though, hmmmm, not at this time. Not me at least. I'm nothing special to this forum, just another Catholic.

How about we debate catholicism then. I have a feeling this is where this is headed anyway....

 

[CCWoody]

No, like Calvinists (whom you are not among) believe, we understand that Redemption is applied to a person at a certain time in history.

What makes you think that?

Salvation/ redemption is spoken of in several senses (and tenses) in the Scriptures. To which do you refer?