My definition of Calvinism

[Danny Carlton]

I really hate to think I'm stirring up any trouble with this, but some of the conversations lately have left me a bit confused. Many have spoken negatively about Calvinists, but no seems to bother defining what they mean by that term. I know what Jean Cauvin (John Calvin) taught, and I know what most who consider themselves Calvinists teach, which is actually more of a spectrum that a specific view. I also know that it's very easy to define a group by some extremists in the group and not really bother looking at that whole (look at how often that's done with Christians as well as Fundamentalists)

I do find it offensive the way some (hyper-Calvinists) imply God whimsically sends people to hell. They seem to give short shrift to the fact that we all deserve hell, in the first place, and it is only by God's grace that some of us will not go there. But for the most part it seems the problem comes in determining the cause and effect. Did we come to Christ because God chose us, or did God choose us because we came to Christ? Since God exists outside time, the cause/effect relationship then goes outside normal logic and poses a paradox. It seems most are content to solve the paradox by simply choosing which side they feel most comfortable with, then hurtling barbs at those who've chosen the other side.

I'm not comfortable with the concept of predestination and election. It seems contrary to what I understand about God that He would cast people into eternal damnation, so arbitrarily, and also that He would be dismissive of free will. But the logic of Calvinism I cannot deny.

Total Depravity. We are all sinners, and incapable of true righteousness, on our own. I can find no logical flaw in that argument.

Unconditional Election. Therefore were God to require any condition on salvation it would be impossible for us to achieve it.

Limited Atonement. Nonetheless, of those who are incapable of coming to God without His help, only some ultimately do. Which means the atonement God provided was not universal and has limits. (all of humanity are not automatically saved merely by virtue of the cross alone)

Irresistible Grace. It also is logical that if we did nothing to earn salvation, we would therefore have little power to resist that calling.

Perseverance of the Saints. And finally it is logical that if we did nothing to earn it, we would be unable to un-earn it.

But at the same time God communicated to us through the Bible the idea that we are to choose, to strive, to work. That salvation is for "Whosoever Will". That we must earnestly strive to spread the word and win souls, yet all this implies personal choice as the cause.

And we are back at the paradox.

I have met hyper-Calvinists, who distort the concepts and belittle evangelism. One college professor of mine said he actually heard a man, giving a testimony in church, confidently claim his wife, sitting next to him at the time, was not one of the chosen. But at the same time I've met Armenians who are totally comfortable with the concept of earning salvation by good works.

To use Calvin's name so restrictively as to refer to only hyper-Calvinists is counter productive. If you believe that you cannot earn salvation, and cannot lose it--you are a Calvinists, because that is the essence of what Jean Cauvin taught in regards to God's Sovereignty.

Further reading: C.H. Spurgeon A Defense of Calvinism http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm

[Jerry]

You have redefined each of those terms - therefore what you are standing for is not true Calvinism - and that might explain why you have no problems with your definitions of them.

Total Depravity means man is unable to come to God - which is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches man is given a choice and not forced to salvation.

Unconditional Election - man has no choice. God chose who He was going to save and who He was not - and those people will be saved, regardless of personal choice in the matter.

Limited Atonement - Jesus Christ only died for the elect - He only died for those who would be saved (rather than Him dying for everyone but only being applied to the saved).

Irresistible Grace - Man cannot resist the call to salvation (which is contrary to the Scriptures - there are many places where man would not obey and resisted God's call)

Perseverance of the Saints - the elect will/must persevere in the faith (some Calvinists teach they must do this to maintain their salvation) - focussing more on man's efforts than God's preservation.

I am sure someone could explain each of these five points much better than I can. I also found these explanations from The Way of Life Encyclopedia:

A Summary of TULIP Theology

Total Depravity: Man is totally corrupt and dead and cannot respond to the gospel unless God sovereignly enables him.

Unconditional Election: God unconditionally chooses who will be called to salvation. Calvin believed that God also chooses who will go to hell. "[God] devotes to destruction whom he pleases ... they are predestinated to eternal death without any demerit of their own, merely by his sovereign will. ... he orders all things by his counsel and decree in such a manner, that some men are born devoted from the womb to certain death, that his name by glorified in their destruction. .. God chooses whom he will as his children ... while he rejects and reprobates others" (Institutes of Christian Religion, Book III, chap. 23).

Limited Atonement: The death of Christ was only for those God will call to salvation. Calvin denounced the universal offer of the Gospel. "When it appears that when the doctrine of salvation is offered to all for their effectual benefit, it is a corrupt prostitution of that which is declared to be reserved particularly for the children of the church" (Institutes, Book III, chap. 22).

Irresistible Grace: God's call to salvation is effective and cannot be resisted.

Perseverance of the Saints: The saved will continue in the faith.

[JerryNumbers]

Amen, it amazes me to how many time the TULIP is redefined to make it more appealing, even to born again believers. Many it seems just completely resist God's truth and form a religion of their own that has nothing to do with God the Father of Jesus Christ.

The most amazing feat is that so many intelligent people get caught up in this false teachings.

[Pastorj]

Interesting definitions. Jerry is right.

Even with your definitions, there are numerous flaws. One of the most glaring examples is Limited Atonement. Christ died for everyone and his Atonement was for all. The problem is, not everyone will accept his payment and those that don't will end up in Hell.

[Jerry]

One thing I find interesting is that Spurgeon did not believe in a Limited Atonement - he quite clearly refutes that (though 5-pointers like to downplay that). He believed that salvation was available to all, so he preached the Gospel to all. I believe that is why God blessed his ministry so much. I don't agree with Spurgeon on how someone becomes "elect", but what he teaches about the elect and their standing with God, blessings from God, fellowship with God, etc. I agree with (so I overlook his references to becoming elect).

[JerryNumbers]

Just a thought. Do you suppose some Christians & even some churches out there declare themselves Calvinist, that really do not hold to the true Tulip doctrine that is held by a true 100% Calvinist? Perhaps not even know what the true TULIP doctrine is.

I read that someone said they thought all Baptist were Calvinist. I have never been in a Baptist Church that taught the TULIP doctrine & right after I surrendered to preach in 97 until I was called to this church in 2001 I preached in many Baptist Churches thru out this area.

There are many around these parts who has heard of Calvin but who rightly don't know nothing about the Calvinist, TULIP, doctrine. About 2 years back I gave a sermons of the Calvinist doctrine, there was only one person who knew of it and they did not fully understand it.

After which I run off some papers with what the other Jerry posted in his post, they were all quite astonished that anyone would teach such a thing.

[John81]

This is why I always ask questions when someone raises the issue of "Calvinism". There are so many different ideas of what is and isn't Calvinism out there today that unless a few questions are asked, one doesn't really know what they mean.

[Jerry]

True Calvinism is pure heresy. Sure, there are some who call themselves Calvinists who may not understand why Calvinism is false teaching, or may have adapted their positions to make them more Biblical - but that is a reflection on them, not on Calvinism itself.

[JerryNumbers]

I agree, when one calls them self a Calvinist, it lines them up with the Calvinist which is 100 % heresy.

[John81]

The point is, as Arkansas Jerry pointed out, some folks think they are Calvinist because they have been misled or misinformed. I've encountered folks who thought they were Calvinist but when you start going over some of the "traditional" Calvinist positions they are quick to say that's not what they believe, or that's not right, and then they explain what they believe. Sometimes there may be an aspect of "Calvinism" in their beliefs and sometimes not.

Is (or was) Spurgeon a Calvinist? By some he is considered as such and by others he isn't.

There are also those who call themselves Calvinists who Calvin himself would have likely rejected since their version goes so far beyond anything Calvin put forth in some areas. Those are the easiest to spot and refute.

[Pastorj]

Calvinisim is rampant at BJU and it's graduates.

[lettheredeemedsayso]

Calvinisim is rampant at BJU and it's graduates.

Why? I didn't think they support that doctrinal teaching there?

[Disciple Maker]

Why? I didn't think they support that doctrinal teaching there?

Are you being facetious?

[John81]

BJU has changed a LOT since Bob Jones senior passed away.

[Alimantado]

There are many around these parts who has heard of Calvin but who rightly don't know nothing about the Calvinist' date=' TULIP, doctrine. About 2 years back I gave a sermons of the Calvinist doctrine, there was only one person who knew of it and they did not fully understand it. [/quote']
Here's the first Baptist church I attended, where I got my AV from, and where I heard most of the sermons that I've attended: http://www.salem.org.uk/

No question that these people genuinely believe in Calvinism, as can be seen from the link to the Baptist Confession of Faith 1689 clearly given on the main web-page. One of the Pastor's sermons is available here, http://tinyurl.com/3aozus (unconditional election), though he rarely preached on Calvinist distinctives whenever I attended the church.

If these guys are heretics too, I wonder when I'll meet some real Christians in the flesh!