My definition of Calvinism

[JerryNumbers]

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.

Really, is what the Calvinist teach really by God's grace thru faith in Jesus Christ?

Not if God offers so much grace, irresistible grace, that the one its offered to cannot resist the call to salvation.

No, Calvinist take the free will of man to accept Christ completely away from them if God has already chosen who will be saved and who will be doomed.

Calvinist it totally false teaching. That is there is not a part of it that is true.

<<(forgot the reference--Christ's words)>> :puzzled:

Sounds like you want to leave out part of the Bible, probably all of those whosoever's, for they clearly teach that Calvinist is false teachings of the worse kind.

[JerryNumbers]

Another example, Ruth the the Moabitess.


6 Then she arose with her daughters in law, that she might return from the country of Moab: for she had heard in the country of Moab how that the LORD had visited his people in giving them bread.
7 Wherefore she went forth out of the place where she was, and her two daughters in law with her; and they went on the way to return unto the land of Judah.
8 And Naomi said unto her two daughters in law, Go, return each to her mother's house: the LORD deal kindly with you, as ye have dealt with the dead, and with me.
9 The LORD grant you that ye may find rest, each of you in the house of her husband. Then she kissed them; and they lifted up their voice, and wept.
10 And they said unto her, Surely we will return with thee unto thy people.
11 And Naomi said, Turn again, my daughters: why will ye go with me? are there yet any more sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands?
12 Turn again, my daughters, go your way; for I am too old to have an husband. If I should say, I have hope, if I should have an husband also to night, and should also bear sons;
13 Would ye tarry for them till they were grown? would ye stay for them from having husbands? nay, my daughters; for it grieveth me much for your sakes that the hand of the LORD is gone out against me.
14 And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her.
15 And she said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou after thy sister in law.
16 And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:
17 Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.
18 When she saw that she was stedfastly minded to go with her, then she left speaking unto her.
Ruth 1:6-18 (KJV)

Of course Orpah could have accepter as well, but she refused to accept it of her own free will.

[Disciple Maker]

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.

John Piper explains Irresistible Grace better than I can...



The way I see it, it's kind of like a small child trying to ride a two-wheel bike for the first time. She wants to do it, she tries, but she can't on her own. But once her daddy steps up and steadies the bike and gives a little push as he runs along side, she finds she can, but the force of his effort is such that whatever weakness on her part might prevent her from continuing, is accommodated by his strength. Total Depravity (our inability to come to God on our own) and Irresistible Grace, go hand in hand. God calls us, and provides the strength for us to complete that process.

Perseverance of the Saints is also the same as Irresistible Grace, except looking at it from our perspective and from salvation onward, rather than up to salvation. I see both as having the same logic behind them.

To be as kind as possible, you really do not know what you are talking about.

[Jerry]

Gentiles were saved in the Old Testament - they were just not part of the commonwealth of Israel. In this age, when Gentiles are saved, they are one together with the Jews in the church.

[Annie]

Gentiles were saved in the Old Testament - they were just not part of the commonwealth of Israel. In this age' date=' when Gentiles are saved, they are one together with the Jews in the church.[/quote']
Can you give an example of this, Jerry? Ruth and Rahab were both part of the commonwealth of Israel...and were both in Jesus's ancestral line, no less.

Also, I don't think the point is that some Gentiles were saved ("hand-picked" by God, as it were) in the OT. My point had more to do with the fact that Gentiles as a whole were not given a chance to be saved. Whole nations of Gentile individuals were not chosen by God to be saved. They (Gentile men, women, children, and infants) were slaughtered at God's command. The OT clearly presents Israel as God's chosen people. The Gentiles as a whole were not offered salvation until the NT. What am I missing?

[Danny Carlton]

To be as kind as possible, you really do not know what you are talking about.

A rather fruitless reply, don't you think.

[Disciple Maker]

The most common word translated ?chosen? in the Old Testament books is the Hebrew word bachar (baw-khar'). There appears to be two parallel ideas communicated by the use of this word: to choose and to test. The key word in the criterion of God?s choice is that God?s calling is ?according to His purpose? (Romans 8:28). The Theological Workbook of the Old Testament makes the following comment on the meaning of this word:

?. . . [T]he word is used to express that choosing which has ultimate and eternal significance. On the one hand God chooses a people (Ps 135:4), certain tribes (Ps 78:68), specific individuals (I Kings 8:16; I Chr 28:5; I Sam 10:24; II Sam 6:21), and a place for his name (Deut 12:25; etc.). In all of these cases serviceability rather than simple arbitrariness is at the heart of choosing. Thus Yahweh chose Israel to be holy and thereby to serve as his witnesses among the nations (Duet 14:6).?(Bolding added)

Therefore, the purpose of God?s choosing is service, ministry or, a specific task. The word always carries with it vocational connotations (not salvational; Eph. 4:1). This is the common usage throughout Scripture. Innumerable Scriptural examples bear testimony to this meaning and use. Since God selects certain groups and individuals for specific tasks, He can unselect them if they fail in His covenant requirements and He can then select others, or another, to fulfill His purpose. This is what happened with the Old (Mosaic) Covenant priesthood of Israel (Malachi chapter 2 and 3; compare Romans Chapter 11).

The first two uses of the word ?chosen? in the Bible are used regarding the choice of Aaron as High Priest (Numbers 16:4) and God?s choice of the children of Israel (as a group) to be His chosen people (Deuteronomy 7:1-11). The Law of First Mention would lead us to understand that this is the way the word ?chosen? (election) is to be understood throughout Scripture. If this is true, we should be able to conclusively show that this is the common usage of the term and the common meaning.

The question we must ask ourselves is if, in God?s choice of the nation of Israel, their salvation is implied or presumed? We must also look at this as it unfolds in Scripture to see if salvation is implied or presumed in any recurrence (the Law of Recurrence). The use of the word ?chosen? in the Old Testament books is almost always used to refer to the choice of groups, not individuals. The exception would be the references that refer to Messiah, individual prophets chosen by God, individual kings chosen by God or, Mary chosen by God to be the birth-mother of Jesus. The word ?chosen? is also used in the Old Testament books to refer to the city of Jerusalem or Mt. Zion (Deut. 16:11). However, the word ?chosen? is never used in the Old Testament books to refer to individuals elected to be saved.

The word ?elect? in the Old Testament Scriptures is from the Hebrew word bachiyr (baw-kheer'). It is the Noun form of bachar (baw-khar') and is used of The Messiah (Isaiah 42:1) and the nation of Israel (descendents of Jacob; Isaiah 45:4; 65:9 and 65:22). In the over 100 uses of bachar , it is never used to refer to someone chosen to be saved.

Someone being "elected" to be saved is an idea foreign to the OT (and I believe to the NT). The overwhelming weight of evidence leads us to a vocational election according to God's eternal purpose "in Christ."

[heartstrings]

Calvinism, the so called "doctrines of grace", whatever you want to call it is an evil false doctrine. The whole "TULIP" is a lie of the devil. It is a cold, dead, gross misrepresentation of the Holy and Righteous God of the Bible. Jesus died for every man woman and child whoever lived or ever will live. I know the Jesus who LOVED and died for Hitler Do you? Salvation is to whosoever will.

[John81]

Columbia Encyclopedia: Calvinism,

term used in several different senses. It may indicate the teachings expressed by John Calvin himself; it may be extended to include all that developed from his doctrine and practice in Protestant countries in social, political, and ethical, as well as theological, aspects of life and thought; or it may be employed as the name of that system of doctrine accepted by the Reformed churches (see Presbyterianism), i.e., the Protestant churches called Reformed in distinction from those professing Lutheran doctrines (see also Reformed churches). Early Calvinism differed from Lutheranism in its rejection of consubstantiation regarding the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, in its rigid doctrine of predestination, in its notion of grace as irresistible, and in its theocratic view of the state. Luther believed in the political subordination of the church to the state; Calvinism produced the church-dominated societies of Geneva and Puritan New England. Calvinism, stressing the absolute sovereignty of God's will, held that only those whom God specifically elects are saved, that this election is irresistible, and that individuals can do nothing to effect this salvation. This strict Calvinism was challenged by Jacobus Arminius, whose more moderate views were adopted by the Methodists and the Baptists. Calvinism challenged Lutheranism throughout Europe, spread to Scotland, influenced the Puritans of England, and received its expression in the United States in the modified New England theology of the elder Jonathan Edwards. The doctrinal aspects of Calvinism receded under the rationalism of the 18th and 19th cent. In more recent times, however, in the Reformed theology of Karl Barth, the Calvinist stress on the sovereignty of God found new and vital expression.

[Annie]

The most common word translated ?chosen? in the Old Testament books is the Hebrew word bachar (baw-khar'). There appears to be two parallel ideas communicated by the use of this word: to choose and to test. The key word in the criterion of God?s choice is that God?s calling is ?according to His purpose? (Romans 8:28). The Theological Workbook of the Old Testament makes the following comment on the meaning of this word:

Therefore, the purpose of God?s choosing is service, ministry or, a specific task. The word always carries with it vocational connotations (not salvational; Eph. 4:1). This is the common usage throughout Scripture. Innumerable Scriptural examples bear testimony to this meaning and use. Since God selects certain groups and individuals for specific tasks, He can unselect them if they fail in His covenant requirements and He can then select others, or another, to fulfill His purpose. This is what happened with the Old (Mosaic) Covenant priesthood of Israel (Malachi chapter 2 and 3; compare Romans Chapter 11).

The first two uses of the word ?chosen? in the Bible are used regarding the choice of Aaron as High Priest (Numbers 16:4) and God?s choice of the children of Israel (as a group) to be His chosen people (Deuteronomy 7:1-11). The Law of First Mention would lead us to understand that this is the way the word ?chosen? (election) is to be understood throughout Scripture. If this is true, we should be able to conclusively show that this is the common usage of the term and the common meaning.

The question we must ask ourselves is if, in God?s choice of the nation of Israel, their salvation is implied or presumed? We must also look at this as it unfolds in Scripture to see if salvation is implied or presumed in any recurrence (the Law of Recurrence). The use of the word ?chosen? in the Old Testament books is almost always used to refer to the choice of groups, not individuals. The exception would be the references that refer to Messiah, individual prophets chosen by God, individual kings chosen by God or, Mary chosen by God to be the birth-mother of Jesus. The word ?chosen? is also used in the Old Testament books to refer to the city of Jerusalem or Mt. Zion (Deut. 16:11). However, the word ?chosen? is never used in the Old Testament books to refer to individuals elected to be saved.

The word ?elect? in the Old Testament Scriptures is from the Hebrew word bachiyr (baw-kheer'). It is the Noun form of bachar (baw-khar') and is used of The Messiah (Isaiah 42:1) and the nation of Israel (descendents of Jacob; Isaiah 45:4; 65:9 and 65:22). In the over 100 uses of bachar , it is never used to refer to someone chosen to be saved.

Someone being "elected" to be saved is an idea foreign to the OT (and I believe to the NT). The overwhelming weight of evidence leads us to a vocational election according to God's eternal purpose "in Christ."

This will be my last post on this thread, since I believe the Calvinism/Arminianism discussion to be fruitless...

Thank you for taking the time to explain those words, Disciple Maker. As I said before, I lean toward the Arminian explanation of soteriology, so in a way, you're preaching to the choir here. I'm not satisfied with your explanation, since the word "elect" is used in the NT, and since it is true that Gentiles as a whole were not given a chance to be saved until the NT (or else what was Peter upset about?). Gentiles who were "saved" in the OT were integrated into Jewish culture--into the Jewish nation, really--the sacrificial system, etc. God made an obvious distinction between the Jews, "His" people, and the Gentile nations, "His enemies." Those Gentiles were born, lived, and died without ever having a chance to be saved. The truth was never preached to them. They were not chosen by God to be saved.

This idea is exemplified by the biblical quotation, "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated." I know it is not talking about emotions...It is talking about God's choosing a people for Himself...to be saved. The Edomites (descendants of Esau) were not chosen to enter the covenant--to participate in the sacrifices which took away their sins, as a picture of Christ. They, in fact, were outside the covenant.

[John81]

The Five Points of Calvinism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This system of theology was reaffirmed by the Synod of Dordt in 1619 as the doctrine of salvation contained in the Holy Scriptures. The system was at that time formulated into "five points" in answer to the unscriptural five points submitted by the Arminians to the Church of Holland in 1610.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to Calvinism:
Salvation is accomplished by the almighty power of the triune God. The Father chose a people, the Son died for them, the Holy Spirit makes Christ's death effective by bringing the elect to faith and repentance, thereby causing them to willingly obey the Gospel. The entire process (election, redemption, regeneration) is the work of God and is by grace alone. Thus God, not man, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Five Points of Calvinism are easily remembered by the acrostic TULIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

T
Total Depravity (Total Inability)
Total Depravity is probably the most misunderstood tenet of Calvinism. When Calvinists speak of humans as "totally depraved," they are making an extensive, rather than an intensive statement. The effect of the fall upon man is that sin has extended to every part of his personality -- his thinking, his emotions, and his will. Not necessarily that he is intensely sinful, but that sin has extended to his entire being.

The unregenerate (unsaved) man is dead in his sins (Romans 5:12). Without the power of the Holy Spirit, the natural man is blind and deaf to the message of the gospel (Mark 4:11f). This is why Total Depravity has also been called "Total Inability." The man without a knowledge of God will never come to this knowledge without God's making him alive through Christ (Ephesians 2:1-5).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U
Unconditional Election
Unconditional Election is the doctrine which states that God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the offer of the gospel. God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4-8).

This doctrine does not rule out, however, man's responsibility to believe in the redeeming work of God the Son (John 3:16-18). Scripture presents a tension between God's sovereignty in salvation, and man's responsibility to believe which it does not try to resolve. Both are true -- to deny man's responsibility is to affirm an unbiblical hyper-calvinism; to deny God's sovereignty is to affirm an unbiblical Arminianism.

The elect are saved unto good works (Ephesians 2:10). Thus, though good works will never bridge the gulf between man and God that was formed in the Fall, good works are a result of God's saving grace. This is what Peter means when he admonishes the Christian reader to make his "calling" and "election" sure (2 Peter 1:10). Bearing the fruit of good works is an indication that God has sown seeds of grace in fertile soil.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

L
Limited Atonement (Particular Redemption)
Limited Atonement is a doctrine offered in answer to the question, "for whose sins did Christ atone?" The Bible teaches that Christ died for those whom God gave him to save (John 17:9). Christ died, indeed, for many people, but not all (Matthew 26:28). Specifically, Christ died for the invisible Church -- the sum total of all those who would ever rightly bear the name "Christian" (Ephesians 5:25).

This doctrine often finds many objections, mostly from those who think that Limited Atonement does damage to evangelism. We have already seen that Christ will not lose any that the father has given to him (John 6:37). Christ's death was not a death of potential atonement for all people. Believing that Jesus' death was a potential, symbolic atonement for anyone who might possibly, in the future, accept him trivializes Christ's act of atonement. Christ died to atone for specific sins of specific sinners. Christ died to make holy the church. He did not atone for all men, because obviously all men are not saved. Evangelism is actually lifted up in this doctrine, for the evangelist may tell his congregation that Christ died for sinners, and that he will not lose any of those for whom he died!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I
Irresistible Grace
The result of God's Irresistible Grace is the certain response by the elect to the inward call of the Holy Spirit, when the outward call is given by the evangelist or minister of the Word of God. Christ, himself, teaches that all whom God has elected will come to a knowledge of him (John 6:37). Men come to Christ in salvation when the Father calls them (John 6:44), and the very Spirit of God leads God's beloved to repentance (Romans 8:14). What a comfort it is to know that the gospel of Christ will penetrate our hard, sinful hearts and wondrously save us through the gracious inward call of the Holy Spirit (I Peter 5:10)!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P
Perseverance of the Saints
Perseverance of the Saints is a doctrine which states that the saints (those whom God has saved) will remain in God's hand until they are glorified and brought to abide with him in heaven. Romans 8:28-39 makes it clear that when a person truly has been regenerated by God, he will remain in God's stead. The work of sanctification which God has brought about in his elect will continue until it reaches its fulfillment in eternal life (Phil. 1:6). Christ assures the elect that he will not lose them and that they will be glorified at the "last day" (John 6:39). The Calvinist stands upon the Word of God and trusts in Christ's promise that he will perfectly fulfill the will of the Father in saving all the elect.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This description of the Five Points of Calvinism was written by Jonathan Barlow who acknowledges that not all those bearing the name "Calvinist" would agree with every jot and tittle of this document.

http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/

[Jerry]

Can you give an example of this' date=' Jerry? Ruth and Rahab were both part of the commonwealth of Israel...and were both in Jesus's ancestral line, no less.[/quote']

Ephesians 2:11-13 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

They became proselytes, but they did not inherit all the promises that the Israelites were heir to.



You are forgetting the fact that ALL nations of the world began with the knowledge of God - then rejected it and went their own way. You can see this clearly in the early chapters of Genesis and Romans 1. It is not that salvation was not offered to them, nor that God never chose them for salvation - it was that they rejected the knowledge of the true God and turned to idols. Also, until Abraham, ALL those who were saved were Gentiles.

This passage shows that God was longsuffering towards the wicked Gentile nations - He gave them many opportunities to know Him, but when they got to a point where their sin was past remedy, He brought judgment. The Canaanite nations were basically satanic idol worshippers, who were involved in gross immorality. God did not bring the Israelites into the Promised Land to wipe out the Canaanites UNTIL they were ripe for judgment.

Genesis 15:16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

[Disciple Maker]

This idea is exemplified by the biblical quotation, "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated." I know it is not talking about emotions...It is talking about God's choosing a people for Himself...to be saved. The Edomites (descendants of Esau) were not chosen to enter the covenant--to participate in the sacrifices which took away their sins, as a picture of Christ. They, in fact, were outside the covenant.

Of course the verse you refer to does not mean "God's choosing a people for Himself...to be saved." Jacob and Esau refer to the nations that came from them.

You say, "to participate in the sacrifices which took away their sins." Hebrews 10:4 clearly says, "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins."

[Jerry]

This idea is exemplified by the biblical quotation' date=' "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated." I know it is not talking about emotions...It is talking about God's choosing a people for Himself...to be saved. The Edomites (descendants of Esau) were not chosen to enter the covenant--to participate in the sacrifices which took away their sins, as a picture of Christ. They, in fact, were outside the covenant.[/quote']

That statement was made about 1500 years after the lives of those two people. God chose Jacob to be the next in the line or Christ and to be the one the blessings came through - it had nothing to do with being chosen or not chosen for salvation.

Here is a study which shows what Biblical Predestination is: What Is Biblical Predestination?

[Jerry]

One point worth mentioning about Total Depravity is that many Calvinists actually teach that God regenerates a lost person BEFORE they respond to the Gospel, in order that they may respond positively - but that contradicts John 1:12 and other passages that teach that we are regenerated upon placing our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Calvinists like Sproul would have the lost person being regenerated (ie. which literally means "born again") twice.