John Calvin Had It All Wrong

[John81]

It seems one of the prOBlems here is that in many cases Calvinists and non-Calvinists have different definitions of what a Calvinist is.

 

As pointed out above, a Reformed church that preaches the biblical Gospel, sends forth soul winners who use the same Romans Road approach many non-Calvinists do, and sees many come to Christ, even though they believe in election and predestination along the lines of what Spurgeon, Edwards and Whitefield did, there will be non-Calvinists who write them off as not really being Calvinists.

 

This is odd, especially since most of these folks don't actually consider themselves to be Calvinists, but as believing in the doctrine of grace (or however they word that term) which they see as being biblical. Their own teaching points to Scripture as being their source, they often cite Paul's writings as where God brought it all together. Then some point to Augustine as being among the first to take to writing about it. Then they point out that Calvin was the first to systematically put it together at a time when such could finally become widely available thanks to the printing press. The odd part being that non-Calvinists will say man Calvinists are not actually Calvinists but when "Calvinists" say they are not Calvinists because they are not following Calvin, the non-Calvinists demand they be called Calvinists. It's all rather circular and gets one nowhere.

 

From what I've seen, non-Calvinists know more about the life of Calvin than do "Calvinists" and this is because "Calvinists" don't follow Calvin. It's similar to the way non-dispensationalists often know more about Darby than do dispensationalists. Again, both sides argue over how to define one another while missing the actual points.

 

So, back to the point of the Gospel. If "Calvinists" or Reformed or whatever term we are using, do preach the biblical Gospel message, then how can that be called a false gospel? If there is evidence of hundreds of thousands being born again in Christ over the centuries through the preaching and ministry of particular Calvinists, then how could that be if they are presenting a false gospel?

 

It doesn't matter what Calvin himself did or said. The question is only about whether or not "Calvinists" are preaching the biblical Gospel or a false gospel. Wesley was vehemently opposed to "Calvinism" yet he teamed up with a staunch "Calvinist" (Whitefield) and freely acknowledged the working of the Lord through him and that many came to Christ through his preaching.

 

The evidence seems to suggest that outside of "hypers", Calvinist are preaching the biblical Gospel that leads folks to salvation.

[Guest]

John 12:32
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Salvation is a very simple thing. I like it when we boil all the discussion down to the simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. "all men"

[HappyChristian]

Ok well sorry if I'm not getting it. I'm not trying to clarify anything for anyone else, btw, just for myself. And I don't think there's anything wrong with my doing that. Maybe speak to you later...

Here is a really simplified way of looking at it. The choice of which DaveW speaks is that which God made before the foundation of the world.  Die-hard calvinists believe that the word elect means a select group of people will get saved.  So, in effect, God sat in Heaven pre-creation and looked through the annals of time and chose: this one will get saved, this one will not; this one will, this one not.  I'll draw this one, won't draw that one.  Etc.

 

Now, as I said, that's a simplification - and that is not the verbiage 5-pointers use.  But many (again, die-hard calvinists) explain verses in scripture with that idea in mind.  When John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world..." it means, according to them, only those whom He elected before the foundation of the world.  "God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" means only those He elected before the foundation of the world.

 

When, in actual fact, they (the verses) mean what they say. Shocker, eh?  Christ died for the sins of everyone.  God does not want anyone to perish (all really does mean all, not just all in a select group...).  The invitation to salvation is open to everyone not just a certain number who will then comprise the church.

 

The Holy Spirit does draw all men...but each individual has the choice to accept or refuse it.  God wants all to accept.  But He made us with a free will. We can choose or reject and our choice determines our eternity. Not God's selection.

 

Hope that makes sense...it's early yet and I haven't finished my iced mocha. 

[ThePilgrim]

When I worked on the farm, and I went out with my shovel to irrigate a field of corn, I didn't need to know the theory of gravity.  All I needed to know is that water flows downhill and I got the jOB done.

Similarly I don't have to know all the detail about how the doctrine of free-will and the doctrine of grace work in order to know what God requires of me.  

When I irrigate all I need is a shovel and faith that God makes water run downhil to get the jOB done rightl. 

When I hear the gospel, irregardless of what the preacher's feelings about mister Calvin or whatever theologian he bases his philosophy of religion on, I know that God wants to save me.

I know that I am a sinner saved by grace.  It matters not-at-all what preacher preached the gospel to me.  I trusted in God to save me and he saved me just as he said he would. 

I don't how it all goes together but I know it works.

 

I have read several works on the freedom of the will, including Johnathan Edwards, and why our free will is not really free will because of our sin nature and I still don't understand it. 

I do understand that no matter what our will, God is sovereign and His will be done.

He says He will save me from my sin, He says He will keep me, He says he will take me into His kingdom and He will have me live eternally with Him.  What more do I need from Him but all that He has promised in His word.

 

He is all that I need.  I don't need any philosophers of religion, no matter what their name or system.  So much for Calvin, Arminius, Luther, or even evangelists like Billy Graham, or Tammy Fay Baker.  All I need is God and faith in His ability to come through.

 

If all this makes no sense, remember it is just one man's opinion and not the opinion of a learned philosopher of religion after all.

 

God bless,

Larry

[Alimantado]

Here is a really simplified way of looking at it. The choice of which DaveW speaks is that which God made before the foundation of the world.  Die-hard calvinists believe that the word elect means a select group of people will get saved.  So, in effect, God sat in Heaven pre-creation and looked through the annals of time and chose: this one will get saved, this one will not; this one will, this one not.  I'll draw this one, won't draw that one.  Etc.
 
Now, as I said, that's a simplification - and that is not the verbiage 5-pointers use.  But many (again, die-hard calvinists) explain verses in scripture with that idea in mind.  When John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world..." it means, according to them, only those whom He elected before the foundation of the world.  "God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" means only those He elected before the foundation of the world.
 
When, in actual fact, they (the verses) mean what they say. Shocker, eh?  Christ died for the sins of everyone.  God does not want anyone to perish (all really does mean all, not just all in a select group...).  The invitation to salvation is open to everyone not just a certain number who will then comprise the church.
 
The Holy Spirit does draw all men...but each individual has the choice to accept or refuse it.  God wants all to accept.  But He made us with a free will. We can choose or reject and our choice determines our eternity. Not God's selection.
 
Hope that makes sense...it's early yet and I haven't finished my iced mocha. 

 
That's ok in itself, HC, but it misses the actual question, which is whether those who believe what you've just outlined above therefore do not believe in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. To me it appears that Dave is arguing that no they don't ("the blood becomes a procedural rubber stamp") and therefore Calvinists are not saved. But he tells me I've misunderstood him, so maybe he's not saying that.

 

Of course, why an atoning sacrifice is necessary once God has chosen to offer forgiveness for sins is a good question and there are answers for it, but that question applies equally to both reformed and free-will systems, i.m.o.

 

By the way, since you brought it up, my opinion would be that the Calvinist 'system' posits free will and the ability to 'choose' in exactly the same way as 'free will' systems, the only difference being that whereas Calvinism attempts to come up with an explanation for why people make the choices they do (God gives some the desire to choose God and others the desire not to), the 'free will' system just has no explanation for it--why people chose differently is just written off as 'free will', which isn't an explanation at all.

 

For myself, I believe God wants all to be saved yet some choose not to be, but I acknowledge that I can't logically reconcile all the aspects of this belief--I just give it up as a paradox.

[Salyan]

I think first generation Calvinists - those 'converted' to Calvinism from other churches - are as likely to be saved as anyone. They have simply adopted a false teaching. It is perhaps the second generation Calvinists - their children, or children's children - that will be tempted to rely on their 'election' as a member of an 'elected' family or church instead of on the blood of Christ for salvation.

[HappyChristian]

Actually, Carl, it doesn't posit choice.  That's what "irresistible grace" is all about - the "elect" can't resist. Ergo, no choice.  Of course they believe in the atoning sacrifice of Christ - but they limit it to only the selected ones, i.e., as I mentioned, the "world" in John 3:16 doesn't mean everyone because Jesus only died for the elect (those who can't resist the draw of the Father...). I can't go so far as to say that no calvinist is saved.  But if it's someone whose been raised to believe in hardcore calvinism, then most likely they aren't saved.  Catholics teach the atoning sacrifice of Christ also, but add their own stuff to it...hardcore calvinists do the same when they claim only the elect will be saved.

 

salyan, you posted as I did and basically said what I was going to...

 

The Puritans are perfect examples of it.  

[Alimantado]

I think first generation Calvinists - those 'converted' to Calvinism from other churches - are as likely to be saved as anyone. They have simply adopted a false teaching. It is perhaps the second generation Calvinists - their children, or children's children - that will be tempted to rely on their 'election' as a member of an 'elected' family or church instead of on the blood of Christ for salvation.

 

Sure, but you could just as easily say that this or that folk might be relying too much on God's forgiveness of sin, rather than on the atoning sacrifice of Christ, to be saved. Or they might be relying too much on their faith in the blood of Christ, rather than on the sacrifice itself (if there's even a difference in those two positions). And on and on it goes...

 

For me, the whole discussion leads to the question that ThePilgrim and IamChief have already given an answer to, and one which has come up before with STIC and his "different Jesus" doctrine, which is what nuances of belief is a person allowed to get wrong before God won't have mercy on them? If someone believes and repents, but for whatever reason they never heard that Jesus was born of a virgin, will they be rejected for relying on a "different Gospel" or a "different Jesus"? If someone gets the doctrine of the trinity a bit wrong and thinks Jesus was part God and part man instead of fully God and fully man, or if their view on examination is closer to modalism, though they don't realise this themselves, will they not be saved because they got their systematic theology wrong? And by the same token, if a 'Calvinist' thinks he is relying on the blood of Christ, but on examination it could be said that maybe technically he isn't, is he also relying on a different Gospel?

 

And if the answer to any of those questions is yes then we have a Gospel that isn't simple at all and relies on the sinner getting an A+ in systematic theology (the right one of course).

 

Your thoughts, Salyan?

[Alimantado]

I can't go so far as to say that no calvinist is saved.  But if it's someone whose been raised to believe in hardcore calvinism, then most likely they aren't saved.  Catholics teach the atoning sacrifice of Christ also, but add their own stuff to it...hardcore calvinists do the same when they claim only the elect will be saved.

 

The huge difference between those two positions is that adding works changes what one relies on for their own salvation whereas believing in limited atonement/election doesn't--the individual Calvinist believes on the blood of Christ just like a 'free will' person does, as you've acknowledged yourself.

 

But what you've just said there (a Calvinist is not saved if they believe in Election) means that even if someone believes all the 'basics', such as the the need for the atoning sacrifice of Christ for their sins to be forgiven, they will still be unsaved if they are wrong in some other area not directly related to their own salvation. And if that's true for Election, then why not beliefs about eschatology, or anything about scripture really...

[Alimantado]

Actually, Carl, it doesn't posit choice.  That's what "irresistible grace" is all about - the "elect" can't resist. Ergo, no choice. 

 

I forgot to respond to this bit, HC. Irresistible Grace, as I understand it, is a statement about desire not about the presence/absence of a choice that's made on the basis of that desire. Sure, a person could argue that by giving a person a desire that would make them choose Christ 100% of the time, God is effectively taking away their free will, but if the 'non-reformed' system is examined in the same way, exactly the same conundrum comes up. Under the 'free will' system, does our will/desire/constitution (whatever you want to call it) determine the choice we make to follow Christ? If the answer is no, that makes the decision pretty much random, or based on external events, and therefore surely not our responsibility? If the answer is yes, then our choice is effectively constrained by that will (as with Calvinism) and the responsibility for the choice falls to who or what put that will in us created beings.

 

The simplest way I can think to put this point is, what is the difference between a Calvinist saying 'that unelect person is totally depraved and will not ever choose Christ' and a non-Calvinist saying 'that alcoholic/atheist/homosexual there could choose Christ but we all know they are way too in love with their sin to ever do it.'?

[mkrishna]

It seems one of the prOBlems here is that in many cases Calvinists and non-Calvinists have different definitions of what a Calvinist is.

 

As pointed out above, a Reformed church that preaches the biblical Gospel, sends forth soul winners who use the same Romans Road approach many non-Calvinists do, and sees many come to Christ, even though they believe in election and predestination along the lines of what Spurgeon, Edwards and Whitefield did, there will be non-Calvinists who write them off as not really being Calvinists.

 

This is odd, especially since most of these folks don't actually consider themselves to be Calvinists, but as believing in the doctrine of grace (or however they word that term) which they see as being biblical. Their own teaching points to Scripture as being their source, they often cite Paul's writings as where God brought it all together. Then some point to Augustine as being among the first to take to writing about it. Then they point out that Calvin was the first to systematically put it together at a time when such could finally become widely available thanks to the printing press. The odd part being that non-Calvinists will say man Calvinists are not actually Calvinists but when "Calvinists" say they are not Calvinists because they are not following Calvin, the non-Calvinists demand they be called Calvinists. It's all rather circular and gets one nowhere.

 

From what I've seen, non-Calvinists know more about the life of Calvin than do "Calvinists" and this is because "Calvinists" don't follow Calvin. It's similar to the way non-dispensationalists often know more about Darby than do dispensationalists. Again, both sides argue over how to define one another while missing the actual points.

 

So, back to the point of the Gospel. If "Calvinists" or Reformed or whatever term we are using, do preach the biblical Gospel message, then how can that be called a false gospel? If there is evidence of hundreds of thousands being born again in Christ over the centuries through the preaching and ministry of particular Calvinists, then how could that be if they are presenting a false gospel?

 

It doesn't matter what Calvin himself did or said. The question is only about whether or not "Calvinists" are preaching the biblical Gospel or a false gospel. Wesley was vehemently opposed to "Calvinism" yet he teamed up with a staunch "Calvinist" (Whitefield) and freely acknowledged the working of the Lord through him and that many came to Christ through his preaching.

 

The evidence seems to suggest that outside of "hypers", Calvinist are preaching the biblical Gospel that leads folks to salvation.

John,

 

What do you think of Harold Camping's version of Calvinism where he advised others that you can do nothing to be saved and to simply wait on the Lord for salvation? Do you consider his version to be an example of hyper Calvinism? I first was exposed to the false theology of Calvinism from him.

[Salyan]

Sure, but you could just as easily say that this or that folk might be relying too much on God's forgiveness of sin, rather than on the atoning sacrifice of Christ, to be saved. Or they might be relying too much on their faith in the blood of Christ, rather than on the sacrifice itself (if there's even a difference in those two positions). And on and on it goes...

 

For me, the whole discussion leads to the question that ThePilgrim and IamChief have already given an answer to, and one which has come up before with STIC and his "different Jesus" doctrine, which is what nuances of belief is a person allowed to get wrong before God won't have mercy on them? If someone believes and repents, but for whatever reason they never heard that Jesus was born of a virgin, will they be rejected for relying on a "different Gospel" or a "different Jesus"? If someone gets the doctrine of the trinity a bit wrong and thinks Jesus was part God and part man instead of fully God and fully man, or if their view on examination is closer to modalism, though they don't realise this themselves, will they not be saved because they got their systematic theology wrong? And by the same token, if a 'Calvinist' thinks he is relying on the blood of Christ, but on examination it could be said that maybe technically he isn't, is he also relying on a different Gospel?

 

And if the answer to any of those questions is yes then we have a Gospel that isn't simple at all and relies on the sinner getting an A+ in systematic theology (the right one of course).

 

Your thoughts, Salyan?

 

Whoa! And here I was trying to avoid a deep theological conversation!

 

I think what I was trying to say in regards to second-generation Calvinists, is that when kids grow up in a church that tells them that they are elect because their parents are, they are likely to think they don't have to do anything to be saved. That is false, because there is one thing they have to do. Choose to repent & believe/trust (that's all essentially one action, so I'm counting it one thing.) So because they don't ever repent & believe, they don't get saved.
 

What can or can't people believe before they are or aren't saved? That's a pretty deep question, and one I honestly haven't the time to think through and reply to properly right now (sorry - I'm going on two weeks of holidays on Saturday and life is kinda crazy right now). And a quick answer really doesn't do it justice. But... what did Paul say about the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15?

 

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time."

 

Maybe the theological understanding that is necessary for salvation is that described here?  A) Christ (Messiah - son of God) died for our sins (we are sinners) (substitutionary atonement) c. according to the Scriptures (Bible as word of God) d) buried and rose again. That seems awfully simplistic, but then isn't that the same thing we would teach a child? We would tell them that they are a sinner, and there is a punishment for sin, but Jesus died to pay that punishment, and rose from the dead because He is God, and He will forgive us and take away our sin if we trust that He did that for us. 

 

I'm not so sure that Calvinism prevents Biblical salvation. I think it OBscures it, confuses it, and adds works to it. It certainly blasphemes the character of God. Thus it is possible that those converted to Christianity through Calvinism may not be Biblically saved. Calvinism is not huge on reaching the lost though, so the greater danger would seem to be to those who grow up through it. But... since I am a Biblicist that believes that 'no man may pluck us out of His hand'... I do not believe that a Christian ceases to be saved upon adopting Calvinism - for the simple fact that he cannot lose his salvation. I do think that Calvinism burdens a believer so that his Christian growth will be hindered, for he will be trying to 'endure to the end' instead of trusting Christ to work 'both to will and to do'.

 

Edited to add: Man, that was an awfully long quick answer!

[Covenanter]

We believe the Scriptures, and the Gospel proclaimed in the Scriptures. Reformed doctrine in no way corrupts the Gospel.

 

We preach that all are sinners, dead in sin, & needing salvation;

we preach Christ as Lord & Saviour, who accomplished our salvation by his life, atoning death, & resurrection;

we command repentance, & turning to Christ in faith, as Saviour & Lord;

we teach baptism as symbolizing cleansing from sin, union with Christ, application of his blood, & filling with the Holy Spirit, but with no saving merit;

we teach godly living, as those who will face a holy Judge at death, & at the resurrection.

 

The contention with anti-calvinists is that they impose their own logic on Calvinism, based on their own (mis)understanding of Reformed doctrine:

e.g.

Calvinists believe only & all the elect will be saved, regardless of what they do;

NO! God has ordained the way of savation - repentance & faith in Christ;

 

Calvinists believe the elect are saved against their will;

NO! The work of the Holy Spirit is to show us our sin & need of a Saviour, so that we willingly, eagerly come to Christ;

 

Calvinism teaches antinomianism (rejection of the Law);

NO! The preaching of the Law convinces us of our sin & need of a Saviour. The Holy Spirit then writes the Law in our hearts, so that we live godly lives according to our renewed nature.

 

Calvinism destroys the Gospel, so that sinners know that their salvation depends on God's election, so there is nothing they can do about their salvation - they might as well continue in sin, so that grace can abound - if God wills to save them, or, if God intends to damn them they might as well enjoy sin in this life:

NO! God is not mocked. There is a Gospel imperative - God COMMANDS all men everywhere to repent. God-defying sinners are only proving their depravity.

 

etc.

 

 

 

 

 

[DaveW]

Nice straw man there - tell us what we are saying and then argue against it......

[Invicta]

Here is a really simplified way of looking at it. The choice of which DaveW speaks is that which God made before the foundation of the world.  Die-hard calvinists believe that the word elect means a select group of people will get saved.  So, in effect, God sat in Heaven pre-creation and looked through the annals of time and chose: this one will get saved, this one will not; this one will, this one not.  I'll draw this one, won't draw that one.  Etc.

 

 

 

 

Well LuAnne, I don't know anyone who teaches that.

 

The most Calvinist Baptist I know, says Salvation is like going in a door marked 'Free Salvation' and when we get inside we look back and see a sign 'Saved by Grace.'

 

God chose JacOB over Esau, "The elder will serve the younger" "JacOB I have loved, Esau I hated"  JacOB still had to take matters into his own hand.