What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[zoidar]

There is an error in believing that there is a "sign" placed on the believer or elect. When people state that if a person truly is saved, then it will manifest by some sign such as a sinless life or greater generosity or a milder temper. A "true Christian" would be such and such which is the "doctrine of salvation + works"
I had a neighbor with whom I had many, what I thought, were good conversations about God. We agreed on points of doctrine. Then one day he told me that I was not saved, obviously, because I did not talk in tongues. I didn't have the "mark" of saved upon me.
This is a false doctrine..salvation +works or "signs."
If a person states to me that he believes in Christ and the Resurrection, or ascribes to the Nicene Creed, I take his word. I don't look for "signs" or "works" as meaning a "True Christian" would do such and such and because that person did not do "such and such" then he wasn't really a Christian.

I think much of "speaking in tongues" that Christians do today is just empty mumbling, even I believe in genuine tongue language. Whatever, it has nothing to with being saved or not.

 

[philadelphos]

I think much of "speaking in tongues" that Christians do today is just empty mumbling, even I believe in genuine tongue language. Whatever, it has nothing to with being saved or not.

Linguists have studied people claiming to 'pray in tongues' or 'speak in tongues' as a hodgepodge of European languages. Also MRI scans of brain activity while they prayed. If suddenly a Svensk could speak in an ancient Chinese dialect, and vice versa, that would be divine. Cases nowadays however appear to be 'mumbling' like verbal diarrhoea, otherwise most certainly fraudulent or delusional.

 

[Der Alte]

I think much of "speaking in tongues" that Christians do today is just empty mumbling, even I believe in genuine tongue language. Whatever, it has nothing to with being saved or not.

I agree with you. I belong to a large southern denomination but I have served in full gospel churches. I have seen incidents of "speaking in tongues" which appear to be genuine. The sounds being produced seem to have the rhythm and cadence of a language. And I have seen incidents which do not seem to be a language. Once I was in an informal service and one of the people present began saying "la la la la etc."
In the '80s I attended a joint revival service at which Paul Yong Gi Cho, who later changed his name to David, presided. On the Sunday morning of the service, the music director was leading the congregation in hymns, a person in the congregation stood up and began loudly "speaking in tongues." When he sat down someone went to the microphone and "interpreted" what was spoken. As I recall nothing of great import. I personally don't think that God would interrupt a service in progress to inspire someone to speak in tongues and not say much of anything.

 

[philadelphos]

About 'thought culture' and Western and Anglo worldview, 'Calvinism' carries platonist and neo-platonist concepts... which lead to humanism... and, ironically, how Westerners got to be so individualistic and self-absorbed with 'my salvation'.--The soteriology guys may not be interested.

Burcu Tekin touches on this in pp 16-17:

The Neoplatonist postulation of intellectual and spritual contemplation as a way through which to reach God and unite with God was also compatible with the Protestant emphasis of purification of the soul and a direct and unmediated communion with God (Hattaway 210). On the other hand, Protestant theology is not quite optimistic about the position of man. Protestantism, particularly Calvinism, emphasized the notion of election and predestination. As a result of the Original Sin and the Fall, man is trapped in his sinful body and only the divinely elected ones are worthy of salvation. Protestants believed that the soul is corrupted and sinful because 17 of its fallen nature. The Calvinist belief in the salvation of the soul is deterministic and depends upon the concept of election. Hebron points out that Elizabethan culture looked both upwards and downwards, combining the Calvinistic awareness of the sinfulness of man with the Neoplatonic hope for salvation through philosophical contemplation and the faculty of reason (31). In this sense, the Renaissance views of the position of man are both optimistic and pessimistic.(https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.633.9963&rep=rep1&type=pdf)

Jacob J. Prahlow:

The language of Colossians 2:17, which reads, “These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” This language of “shadow” (σκιὰ) and “substance” (σῶμα) mirrors the precise language used by Platonists (and later, neo-Platonists) to describe the human condition, imbued in shadows and seeking the true substance that can only be revealed by the enlightened.[5] (Platonism and Paul?)

Roy W. Battenhouse:

"Calvinism and neo-platonism exist side-by-side in perfect harmony... with little to no awareness of contradiction" (The Doctrine of Man in Calvin and in Renaissance Platonism on JSTOR)

 

[philadelphos]

John Sykes covers 'fatalism' and 'religious pathology' in American Calvinists, (Faulkner, Calvinism, and Religion on JSTOR)

Moshe Sluhovsky: "Calvinism was never a monolithic cultural system. Dutch, Scott, German and French followers developed different interpretations of Calvin's theology and distinct Calvinist traditions (Calvinist Miracles and the Concept of the Miraculous in Sixteenth-Century Huguenot Thought on JSTOR)

 

[philadelphos]

I mentioned 'gnosticism' several posts back. Here's some more.

Eric Voegelin, on Luther and Calvin, covers Kantian concepts and Hegellian "madness of self conceit".
(Luther und Calvin – Die große Verwirrung | Brill)

William R. Stevenson Jr:

"Gnosticism of the Modern age had its roots in the Christian experience, and the Protestant Reformation most explicitly nourished its growth. ...characterising John Calvin's project in particular as Gnostic anti-intellectualism" (An Agnostic View of Voegelin's Gnostic Calvin on JSTOR)

Quote: “Gnosticism” (that is, the desperate attachment to the fantasy of historical salvation) of the Modem age has its mostly dormant-roots in the Christian experience, and second, that the Protestant Reformation particularly the parts in that movement played by Luther and Calvin-most explicitly nourished its awakened growth.

While Gnosticism takes many forms in the modem West (for example, “intellectual . . . emotional,” or “volitional” [NSP, 124]), its common source is the millennial speculation which Christianity makes possible. By positing an explicit beginning and an anticipated end to human history, Christianity (most egregiously through its inclusion in the canon of the Revelation to John [NSP, 108]) opens the door to human presumption that both God’s agenda and His timetable are open to clear view by self-chosen human beings. Gnosticism thus “re-divinizes” worldly activity (NSP, 106 107, 130), transforming otherwise limited creatures into beings of unlimited ambition and drive. The creature becomes the Creator. We see the end results, of course, as we survey the carnage of the twentieth century. Gnostic “creativity” has yielded only psychotic mutilation.

Voegelin appears to think that the special susceptibility of Christianity to Gnosticism resides both in its potential dislocation of human conscience from civilizationally expressed standards and in the peculiar “spiritual stamina” (NSP, 104, 122-23) which it requires of most human beings. There is, in other words, a kind of social “isolation” implied by the Christian faith that can destabilize carefully wrought institutional designs and breed the instability of spiritual paranoia. Positing history as a now decipherable pattern thus works both to remove (unduly, it goes without saying) existential anxiety and elevate historical events to a status of divine significance (eg., NSP, 110-12,119-20). (An Agnostic View of Voegelin's Gnostic Calvin - VoegelinView)

Anyone who knows Calvinism (and Lutheranism) knows what this means IRL, not fun.

 

[QvQ]

The creature becomes the Creator. We see the end results, of course, as we survey the carnage of the twentieth century. Gnostic “creativity” has yielded only psychotic mutilation.

Having been raised atheist, I can understand your viewpoint as secular, being that the atheist belief in "science" and man's role in the destiny of the evolving world. There is a definite belief in the beginning of the universe as a unorganized blast of energy, the subsequent organization based on "natural laws" that gave rise to a perpetual motion machine (universe) that is self correcting and will eventually be perfected through evolution aided by man who was spontaneously generated, endowed necessarily with reason to fulfill a evolutionary niche in creation as co-creator. There is either a definite end, nuclear or global warming Or if man manages to avoid these,, then there will be an evolved heaven on earth when the system finally works out all the flaws. Through research into Rna, there is even "hope" of eternal life in this wordly paradise.
This is modern atheism. That is probably the actual religion of most Christians as God is hardly more than a intellectual or emotional construct to most modern people.
God does exist. Therefore, being of the Calvinist persuasion, if Calvinist are "gnostic" then it is the will of God. I do see the point you are trying to make but it is not particularly "calvinist" in my honest opinion.

 

[Guojing]

No, lol.

It doesn't "require" works, it evidences good works:

John is saying essentially, "If we see such and such it indicates one is or is not a Christian in reality."

He is pretty specific about people living in a pattern of unbroken sin, in that it indicates one is certainly not a Christian.

This is James' point as well. Abraham's faith was evidenced by his willingness to sacrifice Isaac. Had Abraham refused it would have evidenced lack of faith in God's Promise to him.

God bless.

You would agree that if there were no good works as "evidence", then that faith cannot save you.

But you still insist that it is faith "alone" that saves.

You don't consider that circular reasoning?

 

[Guojing]

I guess that means no?

We can claim the blessings:

God bless.

You will be a great nation?
You will have descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky?

How many kids you have now?

 

[QvQ]

I am a tad confused so maybe it is easy for one of the other posters to address this question.
It is generally believed that man is initially saved by faith alone. Man is justified and saved by the Grace of God, not by works.
However, it seems to be argued that to retain salvation, there must be works.
In other words, a man cannot earn salvation through works but after salvation a man must earn his continued salvation through works.
Am I reading the other posters correctly? Are works necessary After salvation when works are not enough to save a man Before salvation?

 

[Guojing]

I am a tad confused so maybe it is easy for one of the other posters to address this question.
It is generally believed that man is initially saved by faith alone. Man is justified and saved by the Grace of God, not by works.
However, it seems to be argued that to retain salvation, there must be works.
In other words, a man cannot earn salvation through works but after salvation a man must earn his continued salvation through works.
Am I reading the other posters correctly? Are works necessary After salvation when works are not enough to save a man Before salvation?

Guess you have seen my earlier post? =)

What is wrong with Calvinism ?

 

[philadelphos]

Having been raised atheist, I can understand your viewpoint as secular, being that the atheist belief in "science" and man's role in the destiny of the evolving world. There is a definite belief in the beginning of the universe as a unorganized blast of energy, the subsequent organization based on "natural laws" that gave rise to a perpetual motion machine (universe) that is self correcting and will eventually be perfected through evolution aided by man who was spontaneously generated, endowed with reason to fulfill a "necessary" niche in creation as co-creator. There is either a definite end, nuclear or global warming Or if man manages to avoid these,, then there will be an evolved heaven on earth when the system finally works out all the flaws. Through research into Rna, there is even "hope" of eternal life in this wordly paradise.
This is modern atheism. That is probably the actual religion of most Christians as God is hardly more than a intellectual or emotional construct to most modern people.
God does exist. Therefore, being of the Calvinist persuasion, if Calvinist are "gnostic" then it is the will of God. I do see the point you are trying to make but it is not particularly "calvinist" in my honest opinion.

Firstly, the 'orthodoxy vs heresy' argumentation in order to dismiss a point is argumentum ad hominem and not a rebuttal. TBC, it isn't necessarily 'my point' however it is IMHO a fair and valid point. Note also that laying out arguments against Calvinism does not necessarily mean 'my viewpoint is secular', I may well be more Calvinist than you realise, except I see a colander not a bowl.

The second part is a tautology, and a self-fulfilling prophecy/statement... i.e. Any two given statements such as x and y, (x ⇒ y) ∨ (y ⇒ x). i.e, saying that "God does exist. Therefore, ..." is not enough of a leg to stand on, for or against Calvinism.

It's a Kantian 'argument from morality', that God must exist in order to achieve perfect happiness, virtue, and an afterlife. Effectively saying, 'God exists therefore Calvinism achieves perfect happiness, virtue, and an afterlife'. Which is 'weak foundationalism'. Also an 'infallibility' argument, which is ironically the same as papal infallibility without a pope.

Quoting Paul Helm: "Calvin shows little or no interest in the rationality of religious belief as such; he shows much more interest in establishing the fact that all men know God..." (John Calvin, the "Sensus Divinitatis", and the Noetic Effects of Sin on JSTOR)

Do you see? It's these aspects of Calvinism that are problematic, and in vain. Leaven. 9th commandment.

"If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse." (Job 9:20) "My lips shall not speak wickedness, nor my tongue utter deceit." (Job 27:4) "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the Lord pondereth the hearts." (Pro 21:2) "I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." (Jer 17:10)

Grace and peace

 

[QvQ]

Any two given statements such as x and y, (x ⇒ y) ∨ (y ⇒ x). i.e, saying that "God does exist. Therefore, ..." is not enough of a leg to stand on, for or against Calvinism.

The plain and simple truth is that God exists. God is as obvious as gravity.
Calvin is not relevant other than as a man with an opinion about that simple truth.
If Calvin was interested in that all men should know God, then I heartily agree. What greater gift than a relationship with God? A relationship with God, not in the hereafter, but in the here and now. God is a rational, coherent being And He is a being of magnificent scope. I like that aspect of Calvin's opinion.

"I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." (Jer 17:10)

Old Testament, under the Law. The question has been raised on this thread whether a man who believes in Christ is under the Law.

However, there is the question of free will. I believe in limited Free Will in that God provides the opportunities. For instance, if you want to buy a house, you are limited in your choices by what is for sale, how much money you have. Your "free will" choice is determined by the options available and you don't have very much free will at all, all things considered.
So the path a man follows is determined by the circumstances and that is the will of God.
So how much of anything, a man's house, his job, his family is actually "the fruit of his doing?"
Moses was not doing anything that was his doing, for instance.

 

[Fervent]

Quoting Paul Helm: "Calvin shows little or no interest in the rationality of religious belief as such; he shows much more interest in establishing the fact that all men know God..." (John Calvin, the "Sensus Divinitatis", and the Noetic Effects of Sin on JSTOR)

While I am loathe to defend Calvin, establishing God is known as a brute fact seems far more rational than attempting to defend rationally a theological concept of God. Faith precedes reason, and rationality far more often acts as a defense attorney than an unbiased investigator. It would seem to me that before getting involved in the rationally defensible, a critical step of establishing the propriety of the methodology is never taken up.

 

[John Mullally]

Given the title of this thread: I found an interesting excerpt from a former-Calvinist on his problem with its determinism (from page 2 of the pdf).
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/RollCall/Calvinism_Unmasked_1st_5_chapters_of_.pdf

At this time of my life, this deterministic theology had a detrimental influence on my attitudes about prayer. If God knew everything, and I believed He did; and if God predestinated everything based on His foreknowledge, and I believed He did that too; then, everything that I prayed was foreknown and predestined. If I didn’t pray, that also was predestined; then, it became easy to feel, why should I pray? Unfortunately, I ended up having an abysmal prayer life. The only reason I prayed, I determined in my mind, was because God commanded it in His word. I realized that Christ and Paul were zealous in prayer, however, there was no zest in my prayers. Therefore, I recognized that something was seriously wrong with my Christian life. I knew this was wrong but didn’t know what to do about it.​

 

[QvQ]

If I didn’t pray, that also was predestined; then, it became easy to feel, why should I pray?

Prayer is a constant awareness of the presence of God.

Just my honest opinion

 

[John Mullally]

Prayer is a constant awareness of the presence of God.

Just my honest opinion

He said "everything that I prayed", which means his reference to prayer here includes "asking from God".

All biblical references to prayer include asking from God. For example, the Lord's prayer in Matthew 6 also includes adoration, confession, thanksgiving, besides asking from God. The prayers in Ephesians 1 & 3 include adoration, thanksgiving and asking from God. Pray in Mark 11:24 is referring to asking from God.

 

[John Mullally]

I had a neighbor with whom I had many, what I thought, were good conversations about God. We agreed on points of doctrine. Then one day he told me that I was not saved, obviously, because I did not talk in tongues. I didn't have the "mark" of saved upon me.

Doubting a believer at the face value and requiring or demanding signs would be against the Holy Spirit's work. However, doubting someone who is supposed to be 'mature' in the faith is another matter.

I think QvQ’s old neighbor at the end was just trying to exit conversations with him. My experience when discussing Theological issues is that after too many fruitless conversations, I will want to exit. And if I believe the other person is not acting in good faith, what better technique for exoting then to pound on a scripturally well-supported doctrine you know will offend the other guy. In Mark 16:17, Jesus says those who believe will speak with new tongues – so if you don’t agree, you don’t believe which is bad.

Mark 16:17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues;​

Jesus used this technique for exiting conversations in a few cases. John 6:56 especially stands out where He said “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him” to those who were trying to set Him as the new King to serve their own interest. Here, Jesus's method did the job of offending those who wanted to control Him for their purpose. And it wasn't a falsehood as He effectively repeated John 6:56 at the Last Supper.

 

[philadelphos]

I think QvQ’s old neighbor at the end was just trying to exit conversations with him. My experience when discussing Theological issues is that after too many fruitless conversations, I will want to exit. And if I believe the other person is not acting in good faith, what better technique for exoting then to pound on a scripturally well-supported doctrine you know will offend the other guy. In Mark 16:17, Jesus says those who believe will speak with new tongues – so if you don’t agree, you don’t believe which is bad.

Mark 16:17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues;​

Jesus used this technique for exiting conversations in a few cases. John 6:56 especially stands out where He said “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him” to those who were trying to set Him as the new King to serve their own interest. Here, Jesus's method did the job of offending those who wanted to control Him for their purpose. And it wasn't a falsehood as He effectively repeated John 6:56 at the Last Supper.

Respectfully, for one to be true all must be true. Our congregations can preach in 3 or more dialects of Chinese. The language itself has thousands of regional dialects. We also have various Semitic, European, and Asian language speakers. There are also many with cancer and other terminal illnesses, disabilities, etc. Never has a person who claimed to 'speak in tongues' legitimately fulfilled the requirements of the passage. They are thus frauds, sadly.

Mark 16:17-18, "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

It's not 'disbelief in Scripture' but rather 'disbelief in the person'. Many charismatic claims/practices are death penalty sins.

"But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. ...When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." (Deu 18:20, 22)

"If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul." (Deu 13:1-3)

 

[rwb]

I am a tad confused so maybe it is easy for one of the other posters to address this question.
It is generally believed that man is initially saved by faith alone. Man is justified and saved by the Grace of God, not by works.
However, it seems to be argued that to retain salvation, there must be works.
In other words, a man cannot earn salvation through works but after salvation a man must earn his continued salvation through works.
Am I reading the other posters correctly? Are works necessary After salvation when works are not enough to save a man Before salvation?

As you've stated man is saved by GRACE through faith, the gift of God that none may boast. Having the free gift of salvation by grace through faith that comes from God, man's natural response is to please God through good works. So good works cannot save us, but if we are saved there is a desire, through His Spirit in us to live lives that bring all glory to God alone. For the Scripture says we are to work 'out', not 'for' our salvation for it is God who works in us to both will and to do His good pleasure.

Philippians 2:12-13 (KJV) Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.