Christian Calvanism

[guibox]

Drew - you have t o explain how a spiritually dead man can come to Christ on his own:

God bless

AV, I don't think Drew or anybody who has a problem with Calvinism doesn't deny that God reveals Himself to us and is the only one who can save us by allowing our hearts to be softened by the wooing of the Spirit.

The problem is to say that God draws and chooses only a select few when texts like John 3:16,17 say completely otherwise.

 

[golfjack]

reply

In my opinion Calvanism is very much flawed and actually Biblically dishonest. I believe where Calvanism is dishonest is found in the belief that unbelievers don't have free will and saying that the Gentiles are God's elect. All one has to do is study Romans 9:1-5 to find that the Jews are God's chosen. Verse 4 says who are Israelites, to whom pertain the ADOPTION, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Lwa, the service of God, and the promises. One might say that God has rejected Isarel, but we find in Romans 11:11 where Paul says I say then, have they not stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not. But through their fall, to provoke them to jealously, salvation has come to the Gentiles.

We have a person on this forum who is trying to discover if God is real or not. Av. you are telling him he has no choice in the matter because choses you and you don't chose Him. What a thing to tell someone who is searching for life. God does chose and He chose the Jews to bring salvation to the Gentiles. To believe your way, I guess I don't have to pray or preach the Word to the lost. Therefore, Ccalvanism is dishonest thelogy and also destructive.



May God bless, Golfjack

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Re: reply

We have a person on this forum who is trying to discover if God is real or not. Av. you are telling him he has no choice in the matter because choses you and you don't chose Him. What a thing to tell someone who is searching for life.

AMEN



Curious, welcome to the forum. My prayer is that you find Christ while you are here. IF not because of us, then in spite of us.

I offer you two suggestions in your search for truth.
First, prayer. Simply tell Jesus Christ if He is real, then you would like to believe it, and if He is real, then He must be able to help you find your way.
Second, pick up a copy of the book "More Than A Carpenter" by Josh McDowell.

I will be praying for you.

AV, I am going to offer up another prayer or two for you as well. :roll: Ye know not what spirit ye are of

 

[AVBunyan]

Re: reply

To believe your way, I guess I don't have to pray or preach the Word to the lost. Therefore, Ccalvanism is dishonest thelogy and also destructive. Golfjack

Will you then please explain to me why the most fruitful evangelists and missionaries of old were Calvinists?
No one here yet has commented on this truth.
The evangelists preached the gospel to millions and the missionaries went to the ends of the earth with the gospel and God blessed them with much fruit. Explain why these Calvinists did what they did and why God blessed their works so much.

If this theology is so false then why did God bless these men so - and God blessed them - read your history. I have their works and the documented history behind it.

Again with feeling - The greatest soul winners and missionaries were Calvinists.

And Golf - in regards to our searching friend - I have confidence in God that if God is working on his heart then as the gospel is presented to him:
1 Cor 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1 Cor 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1 Cor 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1 Cor 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Then the Holy Spirit will do the work.

God bless

 

[golfjack]

reply

AV. You know I really don't care what these early century preachers did in the past. Do you really thing that John Calvin had better interpretations of the Word than Modern day Thelogians? I think not. The only Bible they had before the reformation is a Catholic interpretation of it.



May God bless, Golfjack

 

[jgredline]

The OP says

Hello to everybody.

Does any christian here believe or hold Calvanistic views?

I have little experience with Calvanism, other than the written works are quite thick

My basic understanding is that Calvanist views show that humans have no freewill, and that god has already chosen the path of each and every person regardless of their actions or love of Jesus. Is this over simplified? (I'm almost positive it is!). Can anyone give me a better understanding?

Thanks!

Come on Folks, Lets get this back on track. Our Guest had some questions and Lovely and Drew presented some answers to the OP....Jack and AV brought up good points as well....I would suggest addressing the Issues ''TULIP''....Lets look at the doctrine both pros and cons...I will do my best to stay out of it and simply try to keep it on track...Perhaps someone can present the Armenianist point of view as well.....

 

[lovely]

Hi again Curious,

Thank you lovely. That is quite a bit of information to swallow, and I appreciate you taking the time. I need some time to think about it and i'm sure i'll have a few questions for you. Thanks again!

You are very welcome, Curious. I would be glad to answer any questions you may have if I am able, or at least point you to the Scriptures that speak to them. For me, God's Sovereignty, which is one of His attributes, is something I can not deny the Truth of despite the unpopularity of this belief in today's society...and on this board. :wink: I rest in Him, and in my life have come to realize that His reason, and wisdom, are far greater than mine, or the world's. His judgements, and sense of justice are as well. I may disagree with many here, but I love my brothers and sister dearly, and I do not take offense at their disagreement. I hope you understand that we do tend to disagree a lot, as families do, but we are still unified in Christ's love if we are true believers...even in the apologetics forum, and even if there may be a calvinist or two in that group. (at least that is my hope having that leaning myself!) :-D The Lord bless you, and once again I welcome you to the board.

 

[Veritas]

Curious,
lovely is right about us being unified in Christ,

I'm more of an Armenianist, and I'll argue with Calvinists but I still love them as my brothers and sisters in Christ and can point back to Jesus as our Savior, and share that. While on the topic of Armenianism I'll share what I believe.

I think that God loves everyone and wants to save everyone. I also believe that it is only by God's grace that we are saved. There is nothing that we do to earn salvation, its all God. I believe all people are by nature stubborn and resistant to God and push him away, and therein lies our free will. The choice to push Him away. Why some keep pushing and others don't, I don't answer. I don't believe people remain lost due to any lack of God trying to save them. It is the person's fault for remaining in darkness. At the same time, I don't believe that the people that stop pushing God away can think of themselves as better people than those who keep pushing away God; because its God's grace we are saved. If you work out my position it does not have the easily apparent logic of Calvinism, but I believe there are things beyond logic. I know I'm trying to agree to talk to you, Curious, on a reasonable basis, but please understand that it is different to: not affirm 'reason' at all, as compared to: affirming it yet recognizing there are things beyond it. (which is actually reasonable)

 

[AVBunyan]

The OP says...Come on Folks, Lets get this back on track. .

The issue appeared to be whether Calvinism was true or not. I didn't feel a long drawn out exposition was appropriate here. I was trying to show that when Christianity was strong and fruitful Calvinism was the primary theology.

Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

These men bore fruit, good fruit, fruit that reproduced - therefore I listen to their theology - their theology was Calvanistic. Our fruit today is suspect at best. :o

I was trying to show our visitor what made Christianity what it was - Today the majority are Armenian - we are not as strong and fruitful as we used to be - just read the history - it is there as evidence.

For those who don't care what the men of the past believed are destined to be swallowed up in the apostasy, worldliness, and ignorance of this modern day Christianity.

I'm out 8-)

God bless

 

[Drew]

Drew - you have t o explain how a spiritually dead man can come to Christ on his own:

Mat 8:22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins:
1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Basically, I believe that the Calvinist goes overboard in the meaning they ascribe to the word "dead". I submit that one can be "dead" in a number of different ways and to be "dead in your trespasses" in no way implies that you are cognitively dead - dead in the sense of not being able to understand the gift of salvation and accept it. And we also know from the rest of Paul's writings that this kind of interpretation of what it means to be spiritually dead - that one can not make one free will move to escape that state - backfires badly.

Consider Romans 6:2

God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

As far as I can see, this text alone proves that references to being "dead to sin" cannot have the meaning that you ascribe to them.

Clearly, Paul believes that it is possible for someone who is "dead to sin" to, in fact, sin. Otherwise, he would not issue this rebuke. I trust the relevance is obvious. A man who is "dead to sin" has the capability to contemplate sin and enter into it. Likewise, a man who is "dead in sin" also has the capability to contemplate the better path and take some action to follow it.

 

[Drew]

Either God saves or man's choice saves.

I have always felt this notion made no sense. It frames things in a misleading way. I know that many have heard the following argument before, but it bears repeating.

Suppose a house is burning down. A bedridden man is trapped in the house. A neighbour breaks down the door, and runs through the house, risking life and limb in the flames. He calls out for the man. The ill man feebly cries out "I'm in the main bedroom on the second floor". The neighbour rushes there, gathers up the man, carries him down the stairs and out to safety.

Would one say that the man's cry of "Here I am" is responsible for this salvation. Of course not - the saving of the man is the work of the neighbour in any reasonable sense.

I think it is highly misleading to express the issue in this "either God saves or man saves" kind of way.

 

[Drew]

My basic understanding is that Calvanist views show that humans have no freewill, and that god has already chosen the path of each and every person regardless of their actions or love of Jesus. Is this over simplified? (I'm almost positive it is!). Can anyone give me a better understanding?

It seems kind of funny that I suspect that jgredline and I agree on the subject of free will despite our differences over eternal torment. :

I know this may elicit howls of protest from the Calvinists here, but I think that the rejection of free will is not really grounded in the Scriptures but arises for 2 reasons:

1. An overly "localized" and inflexible interpretation of certain texts. Texts whose "plain reading" is suggestive of the "no free will" position (without really delivering a knockout punch against free will) are focused on and all sorts of other texts, suggestive of the presence of human free will, are interpreted in a manner that deviates from their plain reading. All of us, on both sides, need to look at the Scriptures a whole. Almost any doctrine can be "proved" using the approach that I have described.

2. A lack of imagination in respect to the sophisication of God - it is we who cannot imagine how God can achieve his purposes unless he tightly controls all variables, including human will.

 

[Guest]

The issue appeared to be whether Calvinism was true or not.

Actually when I started the thread, I was looking for some clarity on a word i've heard before but did not understand. Whether Calvanism is true or not really is up to the believers of Christianity, or, if other, to be found out apon death.

I'm more of an Armenianist,

This one is completely new to me. What is an Armenianist?

 

[jgredline]

It seems kind of funny that I suspect that jgredline and I agree on the subject of free will despite our differences over eternal torment. :

''Folks''
We see examples of Free will through out the scriptures...Starting with Eve in the garden....Yes, we agree here...Now in saying this let me clarify ''my'' position....To the best of my understanding, the truth is someplace in the middle of both Calvinism and Armenianism...I can find faults in both groups and I can also see all 5 points of both Groups....Take election for example....

First, the bible teaches that God does choose men to salvation (2 Thess. 2:13). It addresses believers as those who are “elect according to the foreknowledge of God (1 Pet. 1:2). It teaches that people can know whether they are elect by their response to the gospel: those who hear and believe it are elect (1 Thess. 1:47).

On the other hand, the Bible never teaches that God chooses men to be lost. The fact that He chooses some to be saved does not imply that He arbitrarily condemns all the rest. He never condemns men who deserve to be saved (there are none), but He does save some who ought to be condemned. When Paul describes the elect, he speaks of them as “vessels of mercy which He had prepared beforehand for glory†(Rom. 9:23); but when he turns to the lost, he simply says, “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction (Rom. 9:22). God prepares vessels of mercy to glory, but He does not prepare men for destruction: they do this for themselves by their own unbelief.

The doctrine of election lets God be God. He is sovereign, that is, He can do as He pleases, although He never pleases to do anything unjust. If left alone, all men would be lost. Does God have the right to show mercy to some?

But there is another side to the story. The same Bible that teaches sovereign election also teaches human responsibility. No one can use the doctrine of election as an excuse for not being saved. God makes a bona fide offer of salvation to all people everywhere (John 3:16; 3:36; 5:24; Rom. 10:9, 13). Anyone can be saved by repenting of his sins and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, if a person is lost, it is because he chooses to be lost, not because God desires it.

The fact is that the same Bible teaches election and free salvation to all who will receive it. Both doctrines are found in a single verse: “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out (John 6:37). The first half of the verse speaks of Gods sovereign choice; the last half extends the offer of mercy to all.

This poses a difficulty for the human mind. How can God choose some and yet offer salvation freely to all men? Frankly, this is a mystery. But the mystery is on our side, not on Gods. The best policy for us is to believe both doctrines because the Bible teaches both. The truth is not found somewhere between election and mans free will, but in both extremes.

Now looking at this from a Calvinistic / reformed point of view, I can find fault in this....Looking at this from an Armenianist view, I can find fault in this...But in looking for faults, we loose ''the simplicity'' of the Gospel of Jesus Christ...Which is why I am a ''Calminianist'' The truth I believe and as is taught by the bible is in the middle....

 

[Drew]

This poses a difficulty for the human mind. How can God choose some and yet offer salvation freely to all men? Frankly, this is a mystery. But the mystery is on our side, not on Gods. The best policy for us is to believe both doctrines because the Bible teaches both. The truth is not found somewhere between election and mans free will, but in both extremes.

Hi jg:

Maybe we will find something to disagree about after all. I am not sure I followed the exact content of your post, but the above statement seem to be a good summary of your position.

I do not share your view that it is possible to hold both these mutually contradictory views. To be more precise, I think it is basically incoherent to claim to believe both the following assertions:

1. God chooses a subset of all people that will ever live and ensures that only these people will wind up in the kingdom.

2. God offers salvation to all people.

I understand that you claim to believe both of these.

I will counter by suggesting that to believe two mutually exclusive things is fundamentally incoherent. Believing that both X and "not X" are true is to make no progress in knowledge at all. My argument is that there is no difference between between having no knowledge on the matter of election and claiming that items 1 and 2 are both correct in some mysterious way.

Let's say we are talking about whether an apple is on the table. To say that one believes that the apple is both on the table and not on it is to advance one's knowledge of the state of the apple by precisely zero.

 

[guibox]

We are having a good discussion on Calvinism on another forum:


4TG - God's Work in the Gospel

Something that was brought up concerning some verses in John 6 are cause for confusion too. A member there, Stan, says this:

John 6:44 says 'No one can come to me unless the Father draws him'... and John 6:37 says 'all that the Father gives me will come to me', and I shall lose none that the father gives me.'

What other way is there to get around the actual words of Jesus? Either Jesus is teaching universalism, which we know is not so, or He really means what He says, that only those that the Father DRAWS (this greek word is very strong as pulling against gravity) can come to Jesus, and none of those that the Father draws to Jesus will be lost. This would mean that everyone God intends or predestines to save from before time began will be drawn to Christ and be saved. There will be no lost causes in God's salvation plan.

Drew and jg in particular, I would like to get your opinion on the matter.

 

[Drew]

We are having a good discussion on Calvinism on another forum:


4TG - God's Work in the Gospel

Something that was brought up concerning some verses in John 6 are cause for confusion too. A member there, Stan, says this:

John 6:44 says 'No one can come to me unless the Father draws him'... and John 6:37 says 'all that the Father gives me will come to me', and I shall lose none that the father gives me.'

What other way is there to get around the actual words of Jesus? Either Jesus is teaching universalism, which we know is not so, or He really means what He says, that only those that the Father DRAWS (this greek word is very strong as pulling against gravity) can come to Jesus, and none of those that the Father draws to Jesus will be lost. This would mean that everyone God intends or predestines to save from before time began will be drawn to Christ and be saved. There will be no lost causes in God's salvation plan.

Drew and jg in particular, I would like to get your opinion on the matter.

Since the topic of irresistable grace has been introduced, I will re-post a modified version of something I posted in past. This material challenges the notion that the John 6 "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me" text supports irresistable grace:

We start with the text of Jonh 6:37-40 as rendered in the NASB:

37. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.

38. "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

39"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

What exactly does “all that†in v37 and v. 39 refer to?

Calvinists will identify the "all that" in verses 37 and 39 as "those whom, in his great love, he elected long ago to save, and cannot help but be drawn into the Kingdom." We shall see that this is not the only possible conclusion when we consider the possible meanings of the "all that" found in verse 39 in light of the the content of verse 40, taking into account some significant structural similarities between v 39 and v. 40.

Note the parallel structure of verses 39 and 40 – they each have 3 clauses that map almost perfectly from one verse to the other. They both have the same A-B-C structure.

First, we should note the connective word "for" in verse 40. This establishes a logical connection between these two verses, suggesting an act of clarification on Jesus’ behalf. The "all that" in verse 39 whom the Father "has given" to Jesus is none other than "everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him" as per verse 40. You can probably see where I am going.

If we allow verse 40 to be used as a clarifying referent to disambiguate the "all that" in verse 39, the 2 verses taken together can be seen to be consistent with a reading that "all who freely come to believe in Jesus" are given to the Son by the Father. The people that are "given" are given in their state of already having freely (without an irresistable "tug") accepted Jesus' offer of salvation.

This text does not support an "irresistable grace" reading to the exclusion of other interpretations."

 

[guibox]

The people that are "given" are given in their state of already having freely (without an irresistable "tug") accepted Jesus' offer of salvation.

If I may play devil's advocate here for a moment...

Keep in mind that the people are 'given ' BEFORE they 'believeth on Him'. If you say that they already have chosen Him BEFORE they are given, then you are supporting some type of election and proving the Calvinist correct.

Those that are 'given' have to be sinners before they can receive the merits of believing on Christ (eternal life).

If that is the case and the given 'are in no ways cast out', then one could support universalism here.

 

[Drew]

If I may play devil's advocate here for a moment...

Keep in mind that the people are 'given ' BEFORE they 'believeth on Him'. If you say that they already have chosen Him BEFORE they are given, then you are supporting some type of election and proving the Calvinist correct.

Those that are 'given' have to be sinners before they can receive the merits of believing on Christ (eternal life).

If that is the case and the given 'are in no ways cast out', then one could support universalism here.

Hello there:

Here is what I believe to be the relevant text:

Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day

Is your statement that "the people are 'given ' BEFORE they 'believeth on Him'" based on verse 37 where it does indeed seem that "giving" comes first and then the person "comes to Jesus"? If this is indeed your point here, I would ask the following:

Are you not assuming that "coming to Jesus" as per v 37 is identified with "believing in Jesus"? This identification does not seem to be obvious to me - I would think "coming to Jesus" can be a conceptually distinct thing from "believing in Jesus". It could be argued that verse 35 draws this distinction for us:

I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.

But either way I am confused by this statement of yours:

If you say that they already have chosen Him BEFORE they are given, then you are supporting some type of election and proving the Calvinist correct.

Why? I am saying that Fred freely believes in Jesus. Having done so, he is then legally justified and can be "transferred" (or given) into God's kingdom. This kind of "being given" involves no election - it is merely the effect of the free will choice. Lets say that I choose to study hard and earn a Phd university degree. At convocation, I am "given" into the state of "doctor of philosophy" - the results of my free will actions are recognized by the university and there is a tangible result.

I have other thoughts about this, but will keep this post short and await your response.

 

[lovely]

Curious,

This one is completely new to me. What is an Armenianist?

There are varieties within Calvinism and Armenianism faiths, but overall they disagree on the free will issue concerning matters of salvation.

Armenianists fall into two general categories...

Those who believe that God remains sovereign and knows the future, but works through the "free" will decisions of man as well. They believe that God is able to reconcile the two though men may not understand how.

And those who lean toward Open Theism, and believe that God is not completely Sovereign. Basically that He does not know all things, but is still able to work His plan through the events and "free" decisions of men as time unfolds.

Calvinists do not hold to a completely free will at all, but believe that the will has been affected by the fall. However, they may disagree to what extent it has been affected. As far as the five basic points listed in my first post, not all Calvinists are five pointers...and some Armenianists may agree with a few of those points as well.

In my family, we believe that only the Bible and the Holy Spirit should lead men in their understanding of God's Truth. We have moved from a point of adhereing to one denomination, because men have a tendency to make idols of their own ideas...even in the faith. Sound doctrine is becoming more and more difficult to hear for believers, and it takes a love for God and His absolute Truth to be able to hear it as one grows in the faith...for our family, this involves a shedding of things learned in the world, and in denominations, and approaching the verses with a heart to learn at the feet of the Master. We believe this is the true narrow path. This is how the Holy Spirit has been leading us through my husband, and it has been a blessing and a delight. The Lord bless you.