Why not Calvinism?

[Oats]

I see many theologians arguing against calvinism why?

What are some pros/cons

 

[Nathan]

I think that there are a lot of different views of Calvinism to begin with. So you would have to come up with a hard core definition of what it is before you could begin to list the pro's and con's.

 

[Sissy]

Here's what Calvinism says to me:

A Father has two children.
He tells them that if they don't eat their supper, they will be punished.
The two children sit down at the supper table.
The father sets a plate of food in front of 1 child, and a plate with nothing on it in front of the other child.

Then he whoops the tar out of the 1 child that had nothing on his plate, for not eating supper.

 

[Oats]

Here's what Calvinism says to me:

A Father has two children.
He tells them that if they don't eat their supper, they will be punished.
The two children sit down at the supper table.
The father sets a plate of food in front of 1 child, and a plate with nothing on it in front of the other child.

Then he whoops the tar out of the 1 child that had nothing on his plate, for not eating supper.

???....Oh I see

The predestination joint?

 

[Mike]

Everyone, please be conscious that this is the CT&A Forum. All Christians are welcome to give their input, but this can't turn into a debate. And this topic usually does.

I will be interested in seeing different interpretations of Calvinism, Predestination and OSAS. Forgive me if I put them together, and you don't believe they should be. I've always seen them as related. I too am seeing definitions that don't fit with my understanding of the theology, which is:

God created some souls with the intent that they would perish and some that that they would live with Him forever.

I see 2 Timothy 3 and other scripture disputing this. So, I'll be looking to see if some see Calvinism as something different than my understanding of it.

 

[Nathan]

Here's what Calvinism says to me:

A Father has two children.
He tells them that if they don't eat their supper, they will be punished.
The two children sit down at the supper table.
The father sets a plate of food in front of 1 child, and a plate with nothing on it in front of the other child.

Then he whoops the tar out of the 1 child that had nothing on his plate, for not eating supper.

:yes......2..... Not that your opinion is wrong. But this is exactly why a hard core definition of Calvinism is needed. This is the impression I get. But when you talk with others that believe in it they say something different.

 

[handy]

Being a former member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, which is about as Calvinistic as they come, I can get us started on a working definition of Calvinism.

To understand the Calvinistic POV, one must understand the acronym "TULIP"

T= Total Depravity of Man That man is a totally sinful creature, wholly dead in his sins and can do nothing that would win the favor of God.

U= Unmerited Favor or Unconditional Election That God chooses whom He will favor without any consideration of the individual. He loves whom He loves and rejects all others. It's important to understand that this is prefaced by Total Depravity, that all men are already dead in their sins. So, it is an act of God's grace that any are loved.

L= Limited Atonement That Jesus death on the cross atoned only the sins of those whom God chooses. The logic here is that since God is sovereign, then all whom Jesus died for would be saved. As we know not all are saved, then Jesus' death was not for all, but just for the "elect", those chosen by God for salvation.

I= Irresistible Grace That all whom God chooses will turn to Him, as God is sovereign over man and man is unable to resist the call to love God if the Holy Spirit regenerates the one dead in sin.

P= Preservation of the Saints That all whom God chooses will be saved, that none will perish. Again, this is due to the sovereignty of God. For if God chose one, and that one ultimately was lost, then God would not have been sovereign.

Most Calvinistic churches will hold to all five of these points. Each of these points are summations of Scriptures which John Calvin based his conclusions on. There is sound exegesis behind them, not say that there isn't. Calvin was indeed a brilliant theologian and apologist for the faith.

There are however, many whom would describe themselves as Calvinists who do not hold to the Limited Atonement, but embrace the other four points. Calvinists will describe themselves as "5 point" or "4 point" Calvinists, based upon the disagreement over Limited Atonement.

There are also what is known as "hyper-Calvinism". Although there are some really strict Calvinist types out there who fall into this category, "hyper-Calvinism" tends to be more of a backlash against the 5 points of Calvinism by those who do not hold to the doctrines. "Hyper-Calvinism" would say that God is so sovereign and man is so depraved that there really is nothing anyone can do about anything. It is a form of fatalism and Calvinistic churches do teach against this extreme. Sissy, your example is a good example of hyper-Calvinism.

I think this is a fair working example of Calvinism for the purpose of discussion.

 

[handy]

I was a member of the OPC for a number of years and studied these points long after I left. Over the years I really have laid all aside except for the idea of the preservation of the saints, and I don't necessarily define it the way Calvinists do, so I guess that doesn't count either.

I think that Calvin's biggest mistake was taking things to their "logical conclusion". Like the logical conclusion that if God chose some for salvation, He chose others for destruction and there isn't a blessed thing we can do about that. I just found myself tiring of the mental gymnastics one has to perform with texts that speak otherwise. In Calvinistic churches, a lot of time is spent explaining that "all" doesn't mean all, that the whole world doesn't mean the whole world etc. etc.

I do believe that Calvinism represents a valid line of Christian theology. The points are well backed up with Scriptures. It is not like some of the current heresies that are out there today wherein one must come to the conclusion that the Bible must be in error or out-dated regarding certain things in order to accept what is taught. Indeed, the OPC is a stalwart defender of the inerrancy of the Scriptures and the need to examine all theology against the light of the Scriptures and to allow Scriptures to interpret Scriptures.

I did that, I did just as they taught me. I held the Bible to be inerrant, I examined all the theology in light of the Scriptures and I allowed the Scriptures to interpret the Scriptures and I came to the conclusion that I don't agree with any of the 5 points.

 

[Sissy]

Sissy, your example is a good example of hyper-Calvinism.

I don't recall ever running into a Calvinist that did not proclaim that there were some people who never had an opportunity to be saved.
Maybe I'll finally meet one in this thread!

 

[Michae1]

I see many theologians arguing against calvinism why?

What are some pros/cons

I do not think I have ever heard a theologian arguing against Calvinism. But maybe all the theologians I have heard are Calvinist.

 

[jasoncran]

I do not think I have ever heard a theologian arguing against Calvinism. But maybe all the theologians I have heard are Calvinist.

pastor adrian rogers has taught that calvinism is wrong. but he doenst spend months on that. more important things to get done.

 

[Dennyh]

I see many theologians arguing against calvinism why?

What are some pros/cons

The more relevant question I think would be "Why Calvinism?" When there is so much Scripture that contradicts the majority of the TULIP doctrine (well everything after the T anyway).
I understand this is not a debate forum so I will stop here.

 

[handy]

I don't recall ever running into a Calvinist that did not proclaim that there were some people who never had an opportunity to be saved.
Maybe I'll finally meet one in this thread!

No, I don't think you will. Calvinism teaches double predestination: that some are chosen for heaven, the rest are chosen for hell. Can't get around that one.

The difference between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism in the matter of double-predestination though is an important one. The hyper-Calvinistic view would be that God actively works towards the salvation of the one (putting food on the one's plate) and actively works towards the damnation of the other (keeping any food from touching that one's plate).

True Calvinistic double-predestination would teach that both plates are filled to the brim with all the best food, and both children equally rejects the food, truly preferring to starve. God then would work with the one child, to open that child's eyes to the feast set before him, and would simply leave the other child alone. The child whose eyes are opened would have to eat the food. Forcibly, if necessary. God would slap that baby on a gurney and hook him up to feeding tubes if that's what it takes. The other one though....God simply doesn't intervene. Period.

For years I sat under the teaching of the Calvinists, then I was in the Nazarene Church, which almost turns God into a supplicant, begging and pleading with His children to please, please eat, but helpless to do anything about it. The one child might eat, the other chooses not to, but there isn't a blessed thing that the Father can do to force the issue. I heard the "God is a Gentleman; He will never force Himself upon you" so many times, one would have thought it was a verse in the Bible. Not to mention that verse that is in the Scriptures "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any man hears My voice and opens the door I will come in to him, and sup with him and he with Me."

But, Revelations 3:20 was never about salvation: it was written to a church, not to a lost individual. Jesus doesn't stand at the door of a lost soul's heart, begging to be brought in, and the whole "God is a gentleman" is not found in the Bible.

I'm glad that I've been involved in the Lutheran church now. Lutherans teach that we have full free will over all aspects of our lives, except, and this is the biggie, our own salvation. Luther recognized man's total inability to turn to God on his own volition. The way a Lutheran would approach the scenario is that God would fill both plates, both children reject the food, and God would have to open the eyes of the children to the feast. However, once the eyes were opened, the children still retain the ability to walk away from the feast.


Lutherans acknowledge that we turn to God because God calls us. That our salvation is truly a gift from Him. And, I believe the Bible teaches this. I don't see in the Scriptures the idea that either child would partake of the feast without God's opening their eyes. However, the Bible clearly teaches that man is responsible for his actions and has the ability to turn his face either towards or against God. Lutherans do a good job in embracing the fact that man is helpless to save himself, but still responsible to God for his actions. After all these years of studying the various doctrines of various churches, I can honestly say that I think Lutheran doctrine is closest to what the Bible teaches.

 

[Danus]

I see many theologians arguing against calvinism why?

What are some pros/cons

The term "Calvinism" is a derogatory term used to package what some have a hard time understanding into a box marked DANGER .

John Calvin was an influential and important French theologian, and pastor during the Reformation. I would suggest you study the man himself first and then dig into some of his theology. Calvin is a major player in forming much of the reform theology we have today within the Protestant churches.

Calvin encountered a lot of bitter opposition in his time and was largely "made fun of" so to speak. A lot of that still exist today for the poor guy, but even some of his supporters in the day, and now, have twisted many of his "points". You might also look up 5 point Calvinist. I think there are also 4 point Calvinist.....not sure. I'm not expert on him, but he had some great thoughts that I admire. Again, read up on him. Do a little Googling. Good luck.

 

[Danus]

Being a former member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, which is about as Calvinistic as they come, I can get us started on a working definition of Calvinism.

To understand the Calvinistic POV, one must understand the acronym "TULIP"

T= Total Depravity of Man That man is a totally sinful creature, wholly dead in his sins and can do nothing that would win the favor of God.

U= Unmerited Favor or Unconditional Election That God chooses whom He will favor without any consideration of the individual. He loves whom He loves and rejects all others. It's important to understand that this is prefaced by Total Depravity, that all men are already dead in their sins. So, it is an act of God's grace that any are loved.

L= Limited Atonement That Jesus death on the cross atoned only the sins of those whom God chooses. The logic here is that since God is sovereign, then all whom Jesus died for would be saved. As we know not all are saved, then Jesus' death was not for all, but just for the "elect", those chosen by God for salvation.

I= Irresistible Grace That all whom God chooses will turn to Him, as God is sovereign over man and man is unable to resist the call to love God if the Holy Spirit regenerates the one dead in sin.

P= Preservation of the Saints That all whom God chooses will be saved, that none will perish. Again, this is due to the sovereignty of God. For if God chose one, and that one ultimately was lost, then God would not have been sovereign.

Most Calvinistic churches will hold to all five of these points. Each of these points are summations of Scriptures which John Calvin based his conclusions on. There is sound exegesis behind them, not say that there isn't. Calvin was indeed a brilliant theologian and apologist for the faith.

There are however, many whom would describe themselves as Calvinists who do not hold to the Limited Atonement, but embrace the other four points. Calvinists will describe themselves as "5 point" or "4 point" Calvinists, based upon the disagreement over Limited Atonement.

There are also what is known as "hyper-Calvinism". Although there are some really strict Calvinist types out there who fall into this category, "hyper-Calvinism" tends to be more of a backlash against the 5 points of Calvinism by those who do not hold to the doctrines. "Hyper-Calvinism" would say that God is so sovereign and man is so depraved that there really is nothing anyone can do about anything. It is a form of fatalism and Calvinistic churches do teach against this extreme. Sissy, your example is a good example of hyper-Calvinism.

I think this is a fair working example of Calvinism for the purpose of discussion.

Yep...pretty much my understanding to a large degree. I have a slightly different take on this "Unmerited Favor or Unconditional Election", but over all well put together.

 

[Nick]

True Calvinistic double-predestination would teach that both plates are filled to the brim with all the best food, and both children equally rejects the food, truly preferring to starve. God then would work with the one child, to open that child's eyes to the feast set before him, and would simply leave the other child alone. The child whose eyes are opened would have to eat the food. Forcibly, if necessary. God would slap that baby on a gurney and hook him up to feeding tubes if that's what it takes. The other one though....God simply doesn't intervene. Period.

That seems to me like single-predestination and what sissy described as doulle-predestination.
Single-predestination is where God works for the salvation of a person. Doulbe-predestination is where God works both for the salvaiton of a person and the damnation of another person. So doulbe-predestination concludes that God sends people to Hell, whereas single-predestination concludes that God choose who to save from Hell.

So far I have come to the point where I could be described as a four-point Calvinist. I'm not entirly convinced on the Limited Atonement part yet. But there does seem to be a heap of logic in Calvinism, which I find hard to walk away from. (is that irresistable Grace for you? :D)

 

[handy]

Yep...pretty much my understanding to a large degree. I have a slightly different take on this "Unmerited Favor or Unconditional Election", but over all well put together.

What is your understanding of "U"?

 

[Mike]

Yep...pretty much my understanding to a large degree. I have a slightly different take on this "Unmerited Favor or Unconditional Election", but over all well put together.

Danus, we seem to be in such lock and step in so many theological areas. Can you say exactly what your understanding is of predestination/Calvinism? Do you believe some of God's children were created for the sole purpose of destruction? Just clarifying! Thanks, bra

 

[handy]

That seems to me like single-predestination and what sissy described as doulle-predestination.
Single-predestination is where God works for the salvation of a person. Doulbe-predestination is where God works both for the salvaiton of a person and the damnation of another person. So doulbe-predestination concludes that God sends people to Hell, whereas single-predestination concludes that God choose who to save from Hell.

So far I have come to the point where I could be described as a four-point Calvinist. I'm not entirly convinced on the Limited Atonement part yet. But there does seem to be a heap of logic in Calvinism, which I find hard to walk away from. (is that irresistable Grace for you? :D)

Nick, the subtlties of "single" vs. "double" predestination are tricky. The key, as I understand it, involves how God works within both those who are elect and the reprobates (the unelect). Single predestination would say that God works within the elect, that the bible teaches this, but that the Bible does not teach that God dooms other individuals by not electing them. As I understand it, (and since you are a current student of Calvinistic theology, maybe you can help me out here) "single predestination" deals only with the elect and not with the reprobate. The state of the reprobate is not included in predestination. Whereas in "double predestination" both the elect and the reprobate are actively dealt with by God: the elect by His merciful intervention and reprobate by His withholding of mercy resulting in his receiving the just wages of sin. The understanding of "mercy and justice" is key as well. With "double predestination" God's mercy and God's justice each play a role: mercy for the elect unto salvation and justice for the reprobate ending in damnation. It is not unjust for God to extend His mercy to some, for in fact all are due damnation.

Murky, admittedly, but I think the Calvinists that I studied under would hold to double predestination not single predestination.

Frankly, one of the things I like best about Lutheran theology is that Lutherans don't have a problem with saying, "I believe this because the Bible teaches it, but the Bible doesn't teach that, so I don't go there." Lutherans tend to hold to the "single predestination" premise: that God elects some for salvation. But, they don't make what the Calvinist sees as the only logical conclusion that God then elects others for damnation simply by not extending His mercy to them.

 

[Nick]

Nick, the subtlties of "single" vs. "double" predestination are tricky. The key, as I understand it, involves how God works within both those who are elect and the reprobates (the unelect). Single predestination would say that God works within the elect, that the bible teaches this, but that the Bible does not teach that God dooms other individuals by not electing them. As I understand it, (and since you are a current student of Calvinistic theology, maybe you can help me out here) "single predestination" deals only with the elect and not with the reprobate. The state of the reprobate is not included in predestination. Whereas in "double predestination" both the elect and the reprobate are actively dealt with by God: the elect by His merciful intervention and reprobate by His withholding of mercy resulting in his receiving the just wages of sin. The understanding of "mercy and justice" is key as well. With "double predestination" God's mercy and God's justice each play a role: mercy for the elect unto salvation and justice for the reprobate ending in damnation. It is not unjust for God to extend His mercy to some, for in fact all are due damnation.

Murky, admittedly, but I think the Calvinists that I studied under would hold to double predestination not single predestination.

Frankly, one of the things I like best about Lutheran theology is that Lutherans don't have a problem with saying, "I believe this because the Bible teaches it, but the Bible doesn't teach that, so I don't go there." Lutherans tend to hold to the "single predestination" premise: that God elects some for salvation. But, they don't make what the Calvinist sees as the only logical conclusion that God then elects others for damnation simply by not extending His mercy to them.

I'm by no means a Calvinist student. :D
You're much more Biblically versed than I am.

But from what I have studied about Calvinism on the internet (and our church is quite Calvinist) your definition of single and double predestination is correct as is what I was trying to say in my post.

I hold to single predestination btw. I think that it is only hyper-Calvinism that teaches doulbe-predestination.