WHY CALVINISM IS UNBIBLICAL - UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION

[PaulChristensen]

I always misspell those.


Sorry

Don't apologise. I just added a bit of much needed comedic relief to this thread.

 

[JLB]

Don't apologise. I just added a bit of much needed comedic relief to this thread.

Do you believe John Calvin promoted unconditional election?

 

[PaulChristensen]

Do you believe John Calvin promoted unconditional election?

I think a lot of what he wrote about it in his Institutes was to counter Pelagianism, which advocates full free choice and puts the full responsibility on the person to decide whether to received Christ or not, before God does anything. Arminius rejected Pelgianism, but advocated that the Holy Spirit enlightened the person with the Gospel, but the person had to receive Christ before being regenerated, and had to continue to choose holiness to retain his salvation. Calvin didn't like Arminius, and his teaching that a person had to be regenerated in some way before being able to see the light of the Gospel and receive Christ, putting the responsibility on God to do the work of the Holy Spirit into someone He fore-ordained to be elected to salvation. I think he concentrated on the Scriptures which said, "You did not choose me, but I chose you." and "chosen to be the elect before the foundation of the world". And that once a person was regenerated and embraced Christ, he could never be lost no matter what he did afterward.

This is the problem with trying to form a theology while trying to look at the things of God through the wrong end of the telescope. Paul said that we only have partial knowledge, "though a glass darkly", like using a telescope in the dark, thereby seeing only a part of what is there.

Therefore, Pelagius, Arminius, Calvin, Wesley, Karl Barth, Oneness theologians, Papists, Pentecostals, Neo-Apostolic, you name it, all have a measure of truth combined with "educated" guesses. All these are very interesting to read, but none of these theologians were crucified for us, nor did they rise from the dead and are not seated at the right hand of the majesty on high advocating for us.

So, I believe that the Holy Spirit has revealed to each of us that portion of spiritual knowledge that is commensurate with the area in which we are called of God to work to glorify Christ and to extend His kingdom.

As for me, I don't believe in unconditional election. We don't have enough knowledge to determine who is elected and who is reprobate. For every person who professes Christianity we have to give the benefit of the doubt, and be content to wait for the final judgment where the secrets of people's hearts are made manifest and it becomes obvious who are the "sheep" and who are the "goats". But as Richard Sibbes, a puritan divine says, "We know our own hearts" implying that we cannot see into the hearts of the person sitting beside us in church. Because things are not always what they appear to be, and the hypocrite is indistinguishable from the genuine believers just by appearances, we have to treat every professing Christian as a brother or sister in Christ until we get to know differently.

 

[JLB]

I think he concentrated on the Scriptures which said, "You did not choose me, but I chose you."

Yes, chose them to be Apostles.

 

[JLB]

chosen to be the elect before the foundation of the world".

If you are referring to Ephesians, then yes, much can be gleaned from the first 12 verses, as to what Paul was saying, especially when we read verse 13.


Verse 4 is crucial to understand.

• just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love

People try to make this verse say… we are unconditionally elected for salvation, and nothing we do will change the inevitable outcome of our it; unconditional election


Understanding how we come to be “in Christ” is important.

Understanding how we remain “in Christ”, is even more important.




JLB

 

[JLB]

As for me, I don't believe in unconditional election.

Amen.

 

[JLB]

I think a lot of what he wrote about it in his Institutes was to counter Pelagianism, which advocates full free choice and puts the full responsibility on the person to decide whether to received Christ or not, before God does anything. Arminius rejected Pelgianism, but advocated that the Holy Spirit enlightened the person with the Gospel, but the person had to receive Christ before being regenerated, and had to continue to choose holiness to retain his salvation. Calvin didn't like Arminius, and his teaching that a person had to be regenerated in some way before being able to see the light of the Gospel and receive Christ, putting the responsibility on God to do the work of the Holy Spirit into someone He fore-ordained to be elected to salvation. I think he concentrated on the Scriptures which said, "You did not choose me, but I chose you." and "chosen to be the elect before the foundation of the world". And that once a person was regenerated and embraced Christ, he could never be lost no matter what he did afterward.

This is the problem with trying to form a theology while trying to look at the things of God through the wrong end of the telescope. Paul said that we only have partial knowledge, "though a glass darkly", like using a telescope in the dark, thereby seeing only a part of what is there.

Therefore, Pelagius, Arminius, Calvin, Wesley, Karl Barth, Oneness theologians, Papists, Pentecostals, Neo-Apostolic, you name it, all have a measure of truth combined with "educated" guesses. All these are very interesting to read, but none of these theologians were crucified for us, nor did they rise from the dead and are not seated at the right hand of the majesty on high advocating for us.

So, I believe that the Holy Spirit has revealed to each of us that portion of spiritual knowledge that is commensurate with the area in which we are called of God to work to glorify Christ and to extend His kingdom.

As for me, I don't believe in unconditional election. We don't have enough knowledge to determine who is elected and who is reprobate. For every person who professes Christianity we have to give the benefit of the doubt, and be content to wait for the final judgment where the secrets of people's hearts are made manifest and it becomes obvious who are the "sheep" and who are the "goats". But as Richard Sibbes, a puritan divine says, "We know our own hearts" implying that we cannot see into the hearts of the person sitting beside us in church. Because things are not always what they appear to be, and the hypocrite is indistinguishable from the genuine believers just by appearances, we have to treat every professing Christian as a brother or sister in Christ until we get to know differently.

So we take the knowledge that God has provided for in the scriptures, and use them to renew our mind, to realign our understanding so we can apply His word to our life. The Holy Spirit being the very Agent in which these things are accomplished.

When we begin to operate outside the boundaries of the instructions He has given us by His Spirit, in our heart and mind, and through His Apostles in the scriptures, we will be headed headlong into destruction.


This is where we make a distinction, to stand firm on behalf of those deceived, declaring the truth in love, not wanting any to be lost.


Paul says it this way —


Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons.
1 Timothy 4:1

Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.
1 Timothy 4:16



and John —


Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 2 John 9



To me, it makes no sense in spending untold millions on various evangelistic efforts, only to have those who do get saved, come in to receive a false indoctrination that ensures their eternal damnation, because they form a believe system (stronghold) that serves to exalt itself against the knowledge of God.



Jesus says it this way —


Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. Matthew 23:15






JLB

 

[jasonc]

we do have clear and grey areas of the bible .

what is clear ,the nature of God , an elder a man of one wife

what is grey ,eschatology
vis the return timing

church government
plurality of elders
congrational
bishop
order of worship ,definition of baptism ,whether immersion ,sprinkled etc
no women elders and pastors or deacons in my church .some might disagree but well,that is another thread .

 

[JLB]

what is grey ,eschatology
vis the return timing

The timing of His coming is not grey.

He gave us signs to observe to know the season.


But you, brethren, are not in darkness, so that this Day should overtake you as a thief. 1 Thessalonians 5:4


If the scriptures plainly say the we as His people are not in darkness, so that Day should overtake us as a thief, then we can believe it.




JLB

 

[jasonc]

my point was that the church would have to admit ,only one view of eschatology is right ,

not pre,post,mid or no,trib with the views of millenialism.

 

[GodsGrace]

we do have clear and grey areas of the bible .

what is clear ,the nature of God , an elder a man of one wife

what is grey ,eschatology
vis the return timing

church government
plurality of elders
congrational
bishop
order of worship ,definition of baptism ,whether immersion ,sprinkled etc
no women elders and pastors or deacons in my church .some might disagree but well,that is another thread .

The nature of God is distorted in the teachings of Calvin.

 

[GodsGrace]

I think a lot of what he wrote about it in his Institutes was to counter Pelagianism, which advocates full free choice and puts the full responsibility on the person to decide whether to received Christ or not, before God does anything. Arminius rejected Pelgianism, but advocated that the Holy Spirit enlightened the person with the Gospel, but the person had to receive Christ before being regenerated, and had to continue to choose holiness to retain his salvation. Calvin didn't like Arminius, and his teaching that a person had to be regenerated in some way before being able to see the light of the Gospel and receive Christ, putting the responsibility on God to do the work of the Holy Spirit into someone He fore-ordained to be elected to salvation. I think he concentrated on the Scriptures which said, "You did not choose me, but I chose you." and "chosen to be the elect before the foundation of the world". And that once a person was regenerated and embraced Christ, he could never be lost no matter what he did afterward.

This is the problem with trying to form a theology while trying to look at the things of God through the wrong end of the telescope. Paul said that we only have partial knowledge, "though a glass darkly", like using a telescope in the dark, thereby seeing only a part of what is there.

Therefore, Pelagius, Arminius, Calvin, Wesley, Karl Barth, Oneness theologians, Papists, Pentecostals, Neo-Apostolic, you name it, all have a measure of truth combined with "educated" guesses. All these are very interesting to read, but none of these theologians were crucified for us, nor did they rise from the dead and are not seated at the right hand of the majesty on high advocating for us.

So, I believe that the Holy Spirit has revealed to each of us that portion of spiritual knowledge that is commensurate with the area in which we are called of God to work to glorify Christ and to extend His kingdom.

As for me, I don't believe in unconditional election. We don't have enough knowledge to determine who is elected and who is reprobate. For every person who professes Christianity we have to give the benefit of the doubt, and be content to wait for the final judgment where the secrets of people's hearts are made manifest and it becomes obvious who are the "sheep" and who are the "goats". But as Richard Sibbes, a puritan divine says, "We know our own hearts" implying that we cannot see into the hearts of the person sitting beside us in church. Because things are not always what they appear to be, and the hypocrite is indistinguishable from the genuine believers just by appearances, we have to treat every professing Christian as a brother or sister in Christ until we get to know differently.

How was Calvin countering Pelagianism since it no longer existed by the 16th century, having been put to rest by Augustine and the council of Carthage?

I'd say that Calvin was writing because he believed fully in Augustines' doctrines of his later life....in which he taught original sin as Adam's sin being imputed to all mankind and thus changing the custom of baptizing babies as a welcome into the Christian community and having to now force them to be baptized since his doctrine was accepted by the CC and it was believed that babies were born lost and into sin and would go to hell if they died without baptism. Something that was not believed prior to Augustine. And which the CC does not even accept today.

Another aspect of Augustine upon which Calvin based his doctrines was the absence of free will....
thus we have unconditional election (which you do not agree with), and irresistible grace.
I wish I could find a YouTube talk on irresistible grace given by RC Sproul when he was younger....
He started by saying that he didn't care for the term because men have always resisted God.
He preferred the term Diving Grace (maybe, can't remember).
THEN he went on to explain irresistible grace!
(this is why I find calvinism totally illogical - there is no real way to explain it and keep with scripture).

I'm not certain about total depravity. I can't remember what Augustine taught about that.
I know that he taught that we can do nothing without the help of God (which was one of the disagreements at Carthage), but we all agree with this - that man is born weak and needs God.

 

[jasonc]

The nature of God is distorted in the teachings of Calvin.

and your view upon that is God cares about persons but not nations is somehow better

had Sodom and Gomorrah heard this gospel they would have repented .

yet no chance to repent was given ,they had lot .

I could say the same with nations outside of Israel that did worse .

you fail to see that oh God preferred Israel over Esau and let Esau falter and be judged is no different ,a choice decided before birth even in your doctrine .

 

[GodsGrace]

and your view upon that is God cares about persons but not nations is somehow better

had Sodom and Gomorrah heard this gospel they would have repented .

Of what speaketh thou?

(if S and G could have repented by hearing the gospel, you are affirming free will).

 

[jasonc]

Of what speaketh thou?

(if S and G could have repented by hearing the gospel, you are affirming free will).

how could they when they didn't hear ,

because God loved us first ,not because we loved him first .

see edited post .

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't mind at all. While I enjoy reading Calvin, because he does teach a lot of faith-building stuff, I don't go along with his unconditional election and predestination views. We have the treasure in earthen vessels, and so there are faults in every theological view. After all, theology is the "science" of seeking to understand the nature and character of God, His plans and purposes for the world and for the church. It is an inexact science. Therefore with every theology, we have to pick the meat from the bones. "Prove all things and hold fast to that which is good". There is a lot of good in Calvin's theology and commentaries, but there are a few bones as well and we have to be careful not to choke on any of them.

I agree.
The big problem I find with John Calvin is that he followed Augustine,,,,the only church father to believe as he did.
Why did the church of the time accept Augustine's doctrines?
I'd say (IMHO) that it was because he was such a great debater against heresies and such an intellectual.
The Eastern churches, however, did not respect him as much as the Western churches did.
Maybe they were stronger in their beliefs....maybe the OC is the correct church (after the split)...
I don't know and do not care for conjecture.

And what do his teachings accomplish?
They change the nature of God.
I find this very disturbing.

 

[jasonc]

no recording or any nation believing without God acting first ,of all he choose the jews(Hebrews) ,he didn't say an Abraham choose me ,but he choose first Abraham the Syrian ,the least of nations

 

[GodsGrace]

Do you believe John Calvin promoted unconditional election?

Absolutely yes.
Book 3.

 

[GodsGrace]

how could they when they didn't hear ,

because God loved us first ,not because we loved him first .

see edited post .

Here we go again.....
Are you saying that NO ONE was saved before the gospels were written?
Was Abraham saved?
Why?

 

[jasonc]

Here we go again.....
Are you saying that NO ONE was saved before the gospels were written?
Was Abraham saved?
Why?

Im saying this God didn't deal with Esau sons equaly.

Jacob got mercy ,Esau not as much ,no,acres to God ,for didn't promise land like that and no promise or dealing with like Isaac ,is Isaac any better ?

no not really ,Jacob had his issues .Jacob doubted and did some bad things . yet Gud showed mercy ,Esau yes sold his birth right and was an idolater.

yet before abraham what nations of God was there ?.

ur of the Chaldean cities was an idolatry city ,the sons of noah created nations and none are listed as God's own


God let that happen ,you,make it sound like he never has a plan and just won't try to actually,bend mens will that you Mrs finite can outthink ,out wit God even if his hearts desire is for you to be saved ,he will let you just walk away and not bother to turn you around ,that's your view of freewill .
not mine