Posted on 02/28/2010 8:30:39 AM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
John Calvin's 16th century reply to medieval Catholicism's buy-your-way-out-of-purgatory excesses is Evangelicalism's latest success story, complete with an utterly sovereign and micromanaging deity, sinful and puny humanity, and the combination's logical consequence, predestination: the belief that before time's dawn, God decided whom he would save (or not), unaffected by any subsequent human action or decision.
Calvinism, cousin to the Reformation's other pillar, Lutheranism, is a bit less dour than its critics claim: it offers a rock-steady deity who orchestrates absolutely everything, including illness (or home foreclosure!), by a logic we may not understand but don't have to second-guess. Our satisfaction — and our purpose — is fulfilled simply by "glorifying" him. In the 1700s, Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards invested Calvinism with a rapturous near mysticism. Yet it was soon overtaken in the U.S. by movements like Methodism that were more impressed with human will. Calvinist-descended liberal bodies like the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) discovered other emphases, while Evangelicalism's loss of appetite for rigid doctrine — and the triumph of that friendly, fuzzy Jesus — seemed to relegate hard-core Reformed preaching (Reformed operates as a loose synonym for Calvinist) to a few crotchety Southern churches.
No more. Neo-Calvinist ministers and authors don't operate quite on a Rick Warren scale. But, notes Ted Olsen, a managing editor at Christianity Today, "everyone knows where the energy and the passion are in the Evangelical world" — with the pioneering new-Calvinist John Piper of Minneapolis, Seattle's pugnacious Mark Driscoll and Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Seminary of the huge Southern Baptist Convention. The Calvinist-flavored ESV Study Bible sold out its first printing, and Reformed blogs like Between Two Worlds are among cyber-Christendom's hottest links.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
I am sorry that your experience was bad..Actually the most common complaint in our PCA is that they do not teach the doctrines of grace enough
As for free will.. Calvinists do not deny that men have free will.. but that free will is subject to the nature of the man and the circumstances of his choices which is determined by God.
Ephesians 1 makes it clear we are chosen to do good works.
My wife, who used to be a hard-core Baptist Arminian, has now “converted” to Calvinism so to speak solely based upon Jesus’ prayer at the Garden. He prays for the elect, not the entire world.
I used to agree with you here and was repulsed by Calvinism. But, in reality....once you truly “get” it.....it brings you to your knees because you realize how unworthy you are and how gracious God is.
We aren’t mere robots....we still do EXACTLY what we want. To say otherwise is a misunderstanding of Calvinism. Yes, God may have tugged at our heart via the Holy Spirit to come to him, but we weren’t dragged against our will....he wanted to do so.
At the same time, those who sin do so because they WANT to do it. By no means does this make God the author of evil just because he passes some over.
“My wife, who used to be a hard-core Baptist Arminian, has now “converted” to Calvinism so to speak solely based upon Jesus’ prayer at the Garden. He prays for the elect, not the entire world.”
Illogical. Jesus also prays at one point for just Peter - does that mean only Peter is loved and saved?
Of COURSE Jesus spent time praying specifically for his followers, current and future. That has NOTHING to do with a list of names, with the ‘Happy List’ of names he loves and will save irresistibly, and the ‘Unhappy List’ of names he has chosen to damn for his pleasure.
“Yes, God may have tugged at our heart via the Holy Spirit to come to him, but we weren’t dragged against our will...”
Scripture says God desires for ALL to repent, and that he commands “all men everywhere” to do so. That some - the large majority - reject him is without doubt, but it is also without doubt that he commands us to repent and believe.
To command someone to do what you know is impossible for them is both stupid and malicious...speaking as a former military officer. And while some military officers are both, God is neither!
Why is it so hard for Calvinists to believe that God is sincere? That when he says he loves the world so much that he gave his only begotten son, that anyone who believes shall not perish - that God MEANS it?! What perversion turns the hundreds of statements about our being required to believe into mocking of our inability? If God saves people based on names on a list, why doesn’t it say so in scripture - just once? Explicitly, as in “For you are saved by grace thru election...”!
This is precisely what Calvin is trying to communicate when he reasons that we are saved by "God's eternal decree, by which He compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man"(Inst. III, 21, 5).
Excellent thought worthy of contemplation. "What He willed to become of each man" is the same as "What He willed each man to be."
He willed an apple to be....(describe apple)
He willed a shark to be....(describe shark)
He willed a lamb to be....(describe lamb)
But, what is a man. In physical form, a human can be described thus and so. In terms of internal workings, humans are so different. All are flawed. Some are forever not so noble.
God DOES already know who will be saved and who will be damned. He's known it from before the foundation of the world. Otherwise, He would not have had to provide a "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
It would also be stupid not to explain to criminals what is the right way. They could always then say, "You never complained before; why now?"
And you know as a military officer that commanded people not to drink and drive that some doofus is going to go out that night, screw up, and you'd have a DUI on your desk to deal with on Monday morning.
“All” refers to all types of men if you look at the context.
There is such a thing as the general call of the gospel. The Bible doesn’t say “come to me if you are elect.” It says come to me and be saved. It’s technically correct that only the elect will come, but that isn’t the point of those calls. It’s a call to come and be saved. That doesn’t mean God has determined that all will be saved, for if you look at Scripture, you see numerous times that God’s will is perfect and will occur. God isn’t a failure. Thus, if God wanted all saved....it would happen.
As for the prayer, Jesus explicitly says he only prays for those the Father gave him. If you look at the rest of John, the giving language is very present and even includes statements like we can only come to Jesus if the father draws us etc.
It is only logical to conclude when faced with this mountain of evidence that election is in fact true. For, if there is a group of people the Father gives to Christ....it must go beyond just his immediate disciples and also include all believers if we see numerous other times that the only way we can come is if the Father gives us to Christ.
That’s the only way because we are dead in sins. It is only those who do not truly understand the Fall who think somehow we can “choose” to be saved. The fall wasn’t a small issue. We are dead, and the dead can’t make themselves alive. We need Christ for that, for Christ to pull us out of the tomb like Lazarus.
Scripture also says our names were written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, so yes, there is that book with our names in it as Christians. And just like Scripture says Christ was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world, there is a clear providential meaning behind this statement. The names aren’t in there “because God knew we would choose” as I assume you might say.
Just a little quibble by the way....God didn’t damn anyone. They do it themselves by their rebellion. He only chooses to save an innumerable number of humanity, passing over others.
I am sorry you encountered that, but at my church we preach Christ crucified. Election is mentioned because of its ties to the Cross and God’s grace, but it is not the centerpiece of every sermon....
Every church has its flaws. Part of the problem is the Sovereign Grace churches haven’t quite gotten “all” of Calvinism so to speak, just the salvation part. But, there is more than just TULIP.
There is no need for an altar call at the end of service....it’s silly. Salvation is between a person and God, not a person and 500 people starting at them. If you do it, fine. But, it’s not necessary.
My Presbyterian church has a general call several times in the service....praying for God to save those who don’t know him and then at the end of the service typically as well when he reminds us all about how God’s grace is and encourages anyone who hasn’t come to Christ to do so. He says people can ask him more after the service if they need to do so.
But, we don’t do the altar call thing.
My PCA teaches it plenty, but it is a small church. I visited some larger ones before. One was fine but largely seemed dead to me. The other did almost all contemporary music and otherwise didn’t seem very Reformed at all.
I found a great one now...even sing one Psalm a service. Very liturgical, and election probably comes up once a service.
“What He willed to become of each man”
At its most fundamental level,
Ex. 21:112-13, He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.
Deut. 32:39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.
All means all. It does not, in context, mean all classes of men, unless God wanted to confuse the issue by not SAYING all classes. The God of Calvin is a God of secrets, and only those with the secret handshake get to learn what God REALLY meant when he said he “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”. For anyone who wants to see the context:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy+2&version=ESV
As Barnes (a Calvinist) puts it:
“Verse 4. Who will have all men to be saved. That is, it is in accordance with his nature, his feelings, his desires. The word will cannot be taken here in the absolute sense, denoting a decree like that by which he willed the creation of the world, for then it would certainly be done. But the word is often used to denote a desire, wish, or what is in accordance with the nature of any one. Thus it may be said of God that he “wills” that his creatures may be happy—because it is in accordance with his nature, and because he has made abundant provision for their happiness—though it is not true that he wills it in the sense that he exerts his absolute power to make them happy. God wills that sickness should be relieved, and sorrow mitigated, and that the oppressed should go free, because it is agreeable to his nature; though it is not true that he wills it in the sense that he exerts his absolute power to produce it. A parent wills the welfare of his child. It is in accordance with his nature, his feelings, his desires; and he makes every needful arrangement for it. If the child is not virtuous and happy, it is his own fault. So God wills that all men should be saved. It would be in accordance with his benevolent nature. He has made ample provision for it. He uses all proper means to secure their salvation. He uses no positive means to prevent it, and if they are not saved it will be their own fault. For places in the New Testament where the word here translated “will” (\~yelw\~) means to desire or wish, Luke 8:20; 23:8; John 16:19; Galatians 4:20; Mark 7:24; 1 Corinthians 7:7; 11:3; 14:5; Matthew 15:28. This passage cannot mean, as many have supposed, that God wills that all kinds of men should be saved, or that some sinners of every rank and class may be saved, because
(1.) the natural and obvious interpretation of the language is opposed to such a sense. The language expresses the desire that “all men” should be saved, and we should not depart from the obvious sense of a passage unless necessity requires it.
(2.) Prayer and thanksgiving 1 Timothy 2:1 are directed to be offered, not for some of all ranks and conditions, but for all mankind. No exception is made, and no direction is given that we should exclude any of the race from the expressions of our sympathy, and from an interest in our supplications. The reason given here for that prayer is, that God desires that all men should be saved. But how could this be a reason for praying for all, if it means that God desired only the salvation of some of all ranks?
(3.) In 1 Timothy 2:5,6, the apostle gives reasons showing that God wished the salvation of all men, and those reasons are such as to prove that the language here is to be taken in the most unlimited sense. Those reasons are,
(a) that there is one God over all, and one Mediator between God and men—showing that God is the Father of all, and has the same interest in all; and
(b) that Christ gave himself a ransom for all—showing that God desired their salvation. This verse proves
(1.) that salvation is provided for all —for if God wished all men to be saved, he would undoubtedly make provision for their salvation; and if he had not made such provision, it could not be said that he desired their salvation, since no one can doubt that he has power to provide for the salvation of all;
(2.) that salvation should be offered to all men—for if God desires it, it is right for his ministers to announce that desire, and if he desires it, it is not proper for them to announce anything contrary to this;
(3.) that men are to blame if they are not saved. If God did not wish their salvation, and if he had made no provision for it, they could not be to blame if they rejected the gospel. If God wishes it, and has made provision for it, and they are not saved, the sin must be their own—and it is a great sin, for there is no greater crime which a man can commit than to destroy his own soul, and to make himself the eternal enemy of his Maker.
And to come unto the knowledge of the truth. The truth which God has revealed: the “truth as it is in Jesus.”
“There is such a thing as the general call of the gospel. The Bible doesn’t say “come to me if you are elect.” It says come to me and be saved. It’s technically correct that only the elect will come, but that isn’t the point of those calls.”
If God says repent, knowing you cannot do so, then God is malicious. What does scripture say? Does it say, you don’t repent because you cannot come? Jesus said, “...you refuse to come to me that you may have life” - not, “you cannot come’, not “you are not called to come’, but “YOU REFUSE TO COME”.
And what would happen if they DID come? They would have life. But they REFUSE...”to decline to accept (something offered)”. According to Vincent’s Word Studies, the word means a stubborn determination not to come.
“If you look at the rest of John, the giving language is very present and even includes statements like we can only come to Jesus if the father draws us etc.”
Yes, we do not seek God on our own. If he does not seek us and draw us, NONE will come. But the drawing is not irresistible. Jesus said, 32And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (John 12)
Yet we also read in John, “11He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.” He CAME, but they did not RECEIVE him.
“That’s the only way because we are dead in sins. It is only those who do not truly understand the Fall who think somehow we can “choose” to be saved. The fall wasn’t a small issue. We are dead, and the dead can’t make themselves alive.”
Actually, dead is only one of the words used to describe us. Just as the Prodigal Son was ‘dead’ to his Father, yet not literally and totally dead, we are not so dead that we cannot repent. We are also described as children of wrath (children are alive), slaves of sin (slaves are alive), lost, sick, etc.
Even in Genesis 4, God presents Cain with a choice:
“Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”
God doesn’t tell Cain he is dead and unable to turn to Him. He presents Cain with a choice, that Cain rejects.
“The names aren’t in there “because God knew we would choose” as I assume you might say.”
What does scripture say? “29For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son...” God knows who will or will not believe, and he has always known it, for he knows the end from the beginning.
“Just a little quibble by the way....God didn’t damn anyone. They do it themselves by their rebellion. He only chooses to save an innumerable number of humanity, passing over others.”
According to the Calvinist, that is borderline heresy. They would then be damned, not by God’s sovereign will and not by a choice made by name before they had done anything (a mistaken application of Romans 9), but actually condemned for making choices - choices that God supposedly doesn’t allow them to have.
Yes, I knew in advance that not all would obey my orders, and could usually know with about 90% certainty who those would be...but the order was a real order, capable of being obeyed, and those who disobeyed would be punished for their disobedience.
However, suppose I ordered someone to flap their arms and fly around the base like a bird. Apart from the fact I would be put into a psycho ward, the airman would have been under no obligation to even try.
A few years back, a Lt Gen (O-9) said he wanted 100 people pulled and sent to an exercise in Korea. The Colonels (O-6) spent about 15 minutes debating how to do it, until the only Lt Col (O-5) - me - said, “General, there is no way no how that we will ever get the money or priority to get 100 people. We have TWO, and have to plan based on reality.”
The Lt Gen smiled a thin smile, said he knew that of course, and it was time to move on to the next topic.
The butt-kissing O-6s didn’t even realize how stupid they looked - but God is neither stupid nor malicious. He doesn’t order us to do the impossible without providing an ‘out’. We cannot obey the law perfectly, but he gave us a different means - faith - and he gave it in Genesis 15, so it wasn’t a new story in the New Testament.
Yes, God knows the names, and he was not surprised by Adam’s sin. God is never caught by surprise.
Can’t is not the same as won’t.
They have a fallen WILL and not a fallen capability.
The Democratic Congress CAN table the Pres’s health care push, but the WON’T.
Also, God KNOWS who the damned are. To command them to repent and believe means He must think they CAN do so.
Do a study of foreknowledge. It is much more intimate and God-directed than just “knowing beforehand.”
Again, I am back to the point that if you are correct that all means every single person in the entire world, God is one massive failure and Christ died in vain.
God’s will is perfect and will come to pass. If God wanted to save all, he would do it.
“To command them to repent and believe means He must think they CAN do so.”
To command them is to give them the opportunity, and it is as real an opportunity as my orders not to drink and drive. When men refuse God or disobey him, they reveal what was in their hearts all along - like the ‘made manifest’ in 1 Cor 3.
Think of David and the census. God incited David, then punished him - but the inciting brought to the surface what both David and Israel already thought in their hearts - that they were great enough to make do on their own.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Sam%2024&version=ESV
Therefore, it’s a matter of will. They have a fallen will. Stephen said to his persecutors “you always resist the Holy Spirit.”
The “could” submit, but he “wouldn’t.”
Therefore, it’s a matter of will. They have a fallen will. Stephen said to his persecutors “you always resist the Holy Spirit.”
They “could” submit, but they “wouldn’t.”
“Again, I am back to the point that if you are correct that all means every single person in the entire world, God is one massive failure and Christ died in vain.”
Not hardly. If God’s chief desire is that men come to him willingly and obey him from the heart as sons, then it is entirely appropriate and successful for Jesus to die for all, that all might have a chance - even if only some take it.
This life is like childbirth - the pains are real, but short, and those who believe will have eternity as sons. Not all pups in a litter live, but we don’t call the litters failures.
If his chief desire was for men to just obey him, then he could do that as well - but he wouldn’t be creating sons, predestined to imitate Christ.
BTW - I did a study of foreknowing. It pretty much means knowing beforehand. Some philosophers add that it must also mean God compels it to happen thus, but that is adding their beliefs to what scripture says.
If they COULD submit, but don’t, it is a real choice. If they CANNOT submit, because dead means dead and that is the only way we are described (and it isn’t), then they COULDN’T submit.
I say they WOULDN’T, and God foreknew that but did not compel it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.