My definition of Calvinism

[Pastorj]

I don't consider myself a Calvinist at all. I was simply responding to John about people who call themselves Calvinists who have redefined the terms. I reject Calvinism as the heresy it is.

[282Mikado]

I am no expert on Calvinism and the threads I have read on this forum concerning it have certainly been informative. To me however it comes down to one thing that I can never shake about this teaching. The OP had the following quote:

One college professor of mine said he actually heard a man' date=' giving a testimony in church, confidently claim his wife, sitting next to him at the time, was not one of the chosen. [/quote']

This man is to be his wifes spiritual head. Because of his position over her, he may very well have doomed her to hell. How many others are going to hell because some mis-guided Calvinist has told them they are not one of the elect? This is sad and it takes away from Jesus Christ! It takes away from His body of believers and it takes away from His power to save all through His death and resurrection.

I say: "...Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

Whosover will may come! :amen:

[Annie]

Indeed, Calvinism (as defined by the OP) is logical.

Arminianism (as espoused by most on this forum) is also logical.

Both systems can be derived from Scripture, IMO. The only way to reconcile them is to accept both to be true. It's a paradox, to be sure...That's why wise, godly Christian men have disagreed on this issue through the centuries. There is no way on earth to know for sure the total truth regarding soteriology. Fortunately, Calvinists and Arminians agree on the essentials: salvation through grace alone by faith alone.

I was raised totally Arminian (free will of man was dominant over sovereignty of God). Now, I attend a very Calvinistic church. I realize that as an Arminian, I totally ignored some very important verses about election and predestination, explaining them away by twisting the meaning and taking them out of context. An intellectually honest person will acknowledge the mystery of this issue, instead of relying on one man's system to explain soteriology, at the expense of ignoring the equally inspired texts of the other system.

Here are a few (hopefully thought-provoking) thoughts from a "Calvinian" (which is the nebulous term I've coined for myself), former Arminian, now more open...

Before the church age, God chose who would be saved, right? Only His special people had that chance...The millions (billions) of other inhabitants of the world had no chance to be saved. They died in their sins, and will presumably be cast into the lake of fire when Christ returns. If this is true, then what makes the doctrine of predestination so ugly to us?

Whosoever will may come...but...only those drawn by the Father will come (forgot the reference--Christ's words)...Therefore, it must logically follow that only those drawn by the Father can want to come. (?) Others do not have the chance to want to come. They don't want to come, because they haven't been drawn by the Father. So, it is by their choice (and His) that they perish.

I CERTAINLY don't have all the answers...I have fewer answers than before, as a matter of fact. I still lean Arminian, but I'm not against Calvinism.

It's an interesting discussion, but it won't be resolved on this earth.

[Jerry]

God intends us to understand clearly what His Word says about salvation - just because two groups took it to extremes doesn't mean the rest of us can't figure it out. The Biblical position is between the two of them - and the five points of either system are wrong. Man cannot earn his salvation, nor do anything to lose it. My salvation is not dependant upon how well I persevere in the faith nor can I ever lose it. God gave me a choice, convicted me and enlightened me through the work of the Holy Spirit and I responded willingly of my own free will to be saved. It was neither all of man, nor all of God. I could have resisted His call to salvation - as we see many do. The atonement is not limited - Jesus Christ died for every last human who will ever live - but salvation is not universal, it depends upon what each person does with the Gospel and the Saviour. It is God that changes the believer, makes him a new creature in Christ, and keeps him by His power until He takes him home.

[Alimantado]

With regards to Calvinism' date=' the more I have looked into this the more I'm finding there isn't just one "Calvinism" but many views that some consider to be Calvinism... Why all of these are called Calvinism I'm not rightly sure of just yet.[/quote']
If someone who believes less than all 5 points can still usefully be called a Calvinist, does that mean a non-Christian can be called a '0-point Calvinist'?


For what it's worth, and I doubtless know less about this than you, all the Calvinists I have spoken to have maintained that nobody knows who are the Elect and that therefore one should not make judgements about who is saved; which is more or less the same as regular Christians claim. For the same reason, I have heard it said that the Gospel should be preached to all regardless. I went to a Calvinist church (all five points) for almost 6 months and all the sermons were preached 'as if' that message were being offered to all.

[Pastorj]

Before the church age' date=' God chose who would be saved, right? Only His special people had that chance...The millions (billions) of other inhabitants of the world had no chance to be saved. They died in their sins, and will presumably be cast into the lake of fire when Christ returns. If this is true, then what makes the doctrine of predestination so ugly to us?[/quote']

You ask if this is true. The answer is no. Anyone prior to Christ could get saved, just as anyone afterwards. Rahab was not an Israelite, but she is in Heaven. Nebuchadnezzar was not an Israelite, however, one day we will get to meet him. These are just two examples of Gentiles who had saving faith.

[Pastorj]

Arminianism holds to the following tenets:

Humans are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation
Salvation is possible by grace alone
Works of human effort cannot cause or contribute to salvation
God's election is conditional on faith in Jesus
Jesus' atonement was for all people
God allows his grace to be resisted by those unwilling to believe
Salvation can be lost, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith


With this said, I don't believe very many on this board would hold to Arminianism either, though I would agree with a number of the statements above, I believe in eternal security of the believer

[Jerry]

Doesn't Arminianism also teach that salvation is an act of the will, that man can choose to be saved whenever he wants to be? I believe whoever can be saved, but I don't believe whenever. It takes the work of the Holy Spirit and the preaching of the Gospel working together to be saved. Yes, it is an act of the will to heed the Gospel and receive Christ - but we are not saved/regenerated by willing to be saved - we respond, and the Holy Spirit does His work of making us new creatures in Christ.

[Pastorj]

Exactly

[Annie]

Rahab was allowed to become an Israelite (as were Ruth and others). But they were "hand-picked," as it were, out of billions of others who were not given that chance. I'd be interested in your reasoning behind Nebuchadnezzar's "saving faith."

Be that as it may, wouldn't you agree that the Amalekite men, women, children, and infants who were slaughtered (by God's command) never had a chance to be saved? They were born the enemies of God, and they died the enemies of God. Same with the Egyptians, Babylonians, Amorites, Jebusites, Edomites, etc., etc., etc. The NT makes it clear that a huge transition was made when Gentiles were allowed to become part of God's family by trusting in Christ. Even Peter had a hard time with that concept.

[Annie]

Doesn't Arminianism also teach that salvation is an act of the will' date=' that man can choose to be saved whenever he wants to be? I believe whoever can be saved, but I don't believe whenever. It takes the work of the Holy Spirit and the preaching of the Gospel working together to be saved. Yes, it is an act of the will to heed the Gospel and receive Christ - but we are not saved/regenerated by willing to be saved - we respond, and the Holy Spirit does His work of making us new creatures in Christ.[/quote']
Like "Calvinism," "Arminianism" has many different definitions, applications, and connotations.

The way I understand it, most Arminians believe in prevenient grace. It is the "grace that has appeared unto all men," the grace that enables a man to receive salvation. They believe this grace is available to all men (who have heard the gospel) at all times. A person can at any time claim this grace for himself and choose to accept Christ as Savior. It is an act of choice, of a person's free will. It is resistable, and membership in "the elect" is conditional, based upon the person's choice one way or the other. (Of course, a person may harden himself to the point that he rejects Christ and ignores the grace available to Him.) It's really very logical, just as Calvinism as a system is logical. But comprehensive? No.

Your view is more Calvinistic...You believe a person does not have the free will to choose Christ except at certain times.

[John81]

I am no expert on Calvinism and the threads I have read on this forum concerning it have certainly been informative. To me however it comes down to one thing that I can never shake about this teaching. The OP had the following quote:



The few Calvinists I have known, and most I've read about or books by, don't agree with such a position. They all believe that no one but God knows who will end up in heaven so all lost people need to hear the Gospel.

Now "hyper-Calvinists" are another matter altogether as many of them seem to believe preaching the Gospel is pointless because if you are predestined to be saved you will simply be saved when God calls you forth without any need of preaching. Some also think they can somehow tell which people are destined for salvation and which are destined for Hell. These sorts tend to be very "holier than thou" and arrogant.

[Pastorj]

Be that as it may' date=' wouldn't you agree that the Amalekite men, women, children, and infants who were slaughtered (by God's command) never had a chance to be saved? They were born the enemies of God, and they died the enemies of God. Same with the Egyptians, Babylonians, Amorites, Jebusites, Edomites, etc., etc., etc. The NT makes it clear that a huge transition was made when Gentiles were allowed to become part of God's family by trusting in Christ. Even Peter had a hard time with that concept.[/quote']

I would not agree with this. The Ninevites were ruthless people that God sent Jonah to preach to them and the entire city was saved. We know that a Babylonian king was saved. Though Scripture doesn't talk about any other Babylonians, it would not surprise me if Daniel led many to the Lord while there.

[John81]

Along these particular lines, I know many over the centuries have raised the issue of the Chinese, American Indians, Europeans, and others who were alive and in some cases numerous but are never mentioned in Scripture.

Some put forth they couldn't have been saved.

[Danny Carlton]

Sorry, but all I'm seeing is a semantics game. You apply your definition, which is way off from what the vast majority of Calvinists would say Calvinism means. You are doing the exact same thing that Liberals who claim all Fundamentalists are the same, and equate us with people like Fred Phelps.

You are taking the extremist beliefs of Hyper-Calvinists and assigning it to all Calvinists.

Total Depravity means that we sin, and we are also incapable ON OUR OWN, to come to Christ. It doesn't mean there's no choice involved. How many drunks want to be free of alcohol? Most, from what I've seen, but few can do it without help and encouragement from friends and family, and even then it takes God's grace for many to ever be free of it. That's what Total Depravity means. Even if we choose and try, we are still incapable withoutn God's help.

Unconditional Election means we can't earn it. How can you disagree with that?

Limited Atonement simply means that everyone isn't automatically saved, as the Universalists teach.