Calvinists please help me as I am trying to understand.

[quickened1]

Generally speaking, how does the calvanist see salvation in the Old Testament? I would think they do not believe anyone is regenerated in the O.T.

 

[Allan]

Yes and no.

Election is from eternity past. God is immutable, so what he intends today he has always intended. There was never a time when he came to a point and said to himself, "okay, I think I'll elect quickened1.

Your next sentence is a huge point of contention. Most Calvinists will characterize sinful humanity as all lost and destined for hell. God, in his mercy, saves some, while others are simply left for their deserved punishment.

Most Non-Cals wiould call this double predestination--that is, God elects some to salvation, and others to hell.

Your third point is an accurate description of Calvinist thought. Only when one has been saved does he then understand that he is one of God's elect.

And Calvinists do believe regeneration precedes salvation; and God gives the gift of repentance and faith. Then they are able to freely trust in Christ for salvation.

Watch some tricky semantics in the term "saved before the foundation of the world."
There is a sense in which this is true, since all future events are already accomplished in the mind of God. But in another sense, at least from the human perspective, we were saved in time. It is at some point in time that the Holy Spirit does his regenerating, illuminating, convicting and calling on us, and grants us repentance and faith.

Non-Calvinists may agree that election is eternal, but for a different reason. They will say that God's election is based on foreseen faith--that God knows who will repent and trust Christ for salvation, and elects them on that basis. They also hold that regeneration and salvation are the same thing. They hold that faith precedes regeneration, not the other way around.

Calvinists maintain that being dead in sin also means spiritual inability. Only by a work of the Holy Spirit is one able to have the ability to freely repent and trust Christ. Non-Calvinists hold that human beings are not totally without ability--that each person has been given the power to exercise free will in the matter of salvation.

I have tried to accurately portray both sides. If I have misrepresented the non-Cal position, be assured that it won't go unchallenged.

To be honest Tom, I thought you did a pretty fair job.

The only thing I might add is that when speaking of Non-Cals and their view of God's electing, many hold that God elects based upon foreseen faith but not all.

 

[Tom Butler]

To be honest Tom, I thought you did a pretty fair job.

The only thing I might add is that when speaking of Non-Cals and their view of God's electing, many hold that God elects based upon foreseen faith but not all.

Thanks Allan. You and I both do not like it when our view is misrepresented by those with an opposing view, so I tried to be very careful.

And even if I accurately state my view, it's quite likely other Calvinists will have a different take. So it's hard to make a general statement that covers all of us.

I am a Calvinist who does not hold to double predestination, but you remember John P of England, a Calvinist who believed strongly in double-P and defended it as quite Biblical. He didn't shy away from it at all.

So if I came close to expressing the non-Cal view, I'm pleased.

 

[quickened1]

Can someone tell me the Calvanist view of individual salvation in the O.T?

 

[webdog]

Can someone tell me the Calvanist view of individual salvation in the O.T?

I'm not a cal, but it is the same as the NT.

 

[quickened1]

I'm not a cal, but it is the same as the NT.

Then the belief is that the Holy Spirit regenerates in the O.T. as well. Im suprised by that. Anyway thanks webdog.

 

[Tom Butler]

I don't know that there is a Calvinist view of salvation in the OT, as opposed to a non-Calvinist view.

Hebrews 11 lists a bunch of OT saints who were mentioned because of their faith. They believed God. They believed his promise of a Messiah. Their hope was in that Messiah.

We may not understand exactly how that worked, but the scriptures are clear that they were saved, justified by their faith.

So are we.

 

[zrs6v4]

I do have another question if anyone is still in this thread......

I was thinking of the term foreknowledge from the Calvinist and non-Calvinist views.


the non-cal would say God determined His will from eternity past based on His knowing who would reject and who would accept in a sense to the time He allowed their paths to meet His for a choice.

The calvinist would say that foreknowledge isnt just God's knowing but His appointing (to know means to choose to give Himself to)based on the election of those chosen to carry out His good will, while others He simply allowed them to continue in their sins.

My question is for someone who understands Calvins view.


How can we explain God's providence in the non-elect due to the fact that He moves the elect by a secondary means to make godly choices according to His will. The term foreknowledge from the non-Cal view would then be accurate for the non-elect otherwise God would be moving the non-elect to sin providentially? So the issue is the term foreknowledge, which I may be wrong, seems to be used differently by the Calvinist based on if we are elected or not.... please explain

 

[Jarthur001]

Hello thread,



I have stayed away from this thread and others like it for a while. Lets take a look...

I was thinking of the term foreknowledge from the Calvinist and non-Calvinist views.

ok

the non-cal would say God determined His will from eternity past based on His knowing who would reject and who would accept in a sense to the time He allowed their paths to meet His for a choice.

1st off we need to name this right. This is not just the so-called "non-Calvinist" view. A non-Calvinist view holds to anything that is not Calvinist. So this phrase (non-Calvinist) is a greater umbrella label that covers many views/arguments within it. But when we know and understand the argument, for it has been labeled by the group that wrote the argument, than there is no need to address the argument in the umbrella phrase of "non-Calvinist", but specific name given by those that wrote the argument.

What you just gave above are the views of the Arminians.

In short...God's election is conditional on faith in the sacrifice and Lordship of Jesus Christ because He KNOWS before hand and elects because they choose.

Jacobus Arminius put a twist on the word "Foreknow" that had never been seen before in theology. You can read the full statement by the man himself that wrote this idea at the link below.

A DECLARATION OF THE SENTIMENTS OF ARMINIUS


So my point is...
This is the Arminius argument of years ago and should be labeled such.

Arminianism 101​

​

The calvinist would say that foreknowledge isnt just God's knowing but His appointing (to know means to choose to give Himself to)based on the election of those chosen to carry out His good will, while others He simply allowed them to continue in their sins.

Lets make this simple. A Calvinist would believe the word means what it says. Fore-loved

My question is for someone who understands Calvins view.

ok...i'll give it a try

How can we explain God's providence in the non-elect due to the fact that He moves the elect by a secondary means to make godly choices according to His will.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. But let me tell you this. Foreknowing is the loving that leads to election, and forces no one to make godly choices, but rather removes that which keeps them from making the choice in the beginning. The choice is still mans, it's just that he WILL now choose for he now understands his need.

The term foreknowledge from the non-Cal view would then be accurate for the non-elect otherwise God would be moving the non-elect to sin providentially?

Not at all. But you have hit upon a major problem with the Arminianism foreknowledge argument. Who does God know about? You see the problem? Because all that God knows about (using the Arminian argument), he also elects. All of them? Yes. That is what scipture says.

So the issue is the term foreknowledge, which I may be wrong, seems to be used differently by the Calvinist based on if we are elected or not.... please explain

indeed. I think I just did.

 

[Jarthur001]

To be honest Tom, I thought you did a pretty fair job.

The only thing I might add is that when speaking of Non-Cals and their view of God's electing, many hold that God elects based upon foreseen faith but not all.

What are some of the other non-Calvinist views on election that are not based on "foreseen faith"?

 

[Allan]

Hey James, long time no see.

I am only going to comment/question on your post only in part because I'm not wanting to debate your post per-say since you are responding to someone who is searching out answers.

Lets make this simple. A Calvinist would believe the word means what it says. Fore-loved

I agree that this is what Calvinists 'call' it. But the fact is this is not what the word actaully means. There are words in the Greek which means love but this particular word in the Greek "gnōsis" unfortunately does not.

The closest thing you can come to is that it is an idiom refering to se*ual int*rcourse, which doesn't refer to love since the word is used just as often regarding the se*ual union of those who were raped and of those with prostitutes.

Foreknowing is the loving that leads to election

What was it about them that God loved?

Or maybe a question that is more in line with your thought:
Why did God choose to love them only?

Because all that God knows about (using the Arminian argument), he also elects. All of them? Yes. That is what scipture says.

Ummm no, that is not what the Arminian argument states.
The Arminian argument states that God elects these people based upon His 'knowledge' of who will choose Christ as savior and not that because God has knowledge of anything it is elected. Therefore His decree is made after His decision to elect them.

 

[Allan]

This is not just the so-called "non-Calvinist" view. A non-Calvinist view holds to anything that is not Calvinist.

This is not true James and you know it.

A non-cal typically hold a view closer to that of a Calvinist rather than the Arminian and thus the term "Non-Cal".

 

[Rippon]

A non-cal typically hold a view closer to that of a Calvinist rather than the Arminian and thus the term "Non-Cal".

Did you just make that up on the spot?Calvinists here on the BB use the term 'non-Cal' because to call someone an Arminian or Semi-Pelagian would seem impolite (true,but impolite).

Your idea of what constitutes a non-cal is only your own view.

 

[Allan]

What are some of the other non-Calvinist views on election that are not based on "foreseen faith"?

The view above states that God must look down the corridor of time to see who all will believe, then God chooses to elect them He sees believing to salvation, and then decrees it to be done.

The other view is actaully a reversal of the above in that God decrees first to save by grace through faith and simultainiously knows all who are of faith. These are His chosen/elect. His decree was not made based upon all who would believe but on how He had chosen to save a particular group of mankind.

IOW - The decree to save by grace through faith produces the very people He purposed to save which are by nature of the decree His elect or chosen people.

 

[Allan]

deleted not worth it. Sorry Rippon.......

Changed my mind, (happy?)

The term can have varied meanings depending on who is using them and for what purpose. As you suggested it can be used as a perjorative, used by those who know little of grace and almost nothing of civility.

It can also be understood in manner that is typical of those who hold it and thus can actaully tell you what it refers to.

Thus the argument is much like that of Calvinism.
One side says they are followers of John Calvin
And the other says no it is simply a way to identify what we hold as a view.

 

[zrs6v4]

Hello thread,
I have stayed away from this thread and others like it for a while. Lets take a look...

Thanks for the reply, and I understand

1st off we need to name this right. This is not just the so-called "non-Calvinist" view. A non-Calvinist view holds to anything that is not Calvinist. So this phrase (non-Calvinist) is a greater umbrella label that covers many views/arguments within it. But when we know and understand the argument, for it has been labeled by the group that wrote the argument, than there is no need to address the argument in the umbrella phrase of "non-Calvinist", but specific name given by those that wrote the argument.

What you just gave above are the views of the Arminians.

In short...God's election is conditional on faith in the sacrifice and Lordship of Jesus Christ because He KNOWS before hand and elects because they choose.

Jacobus Arminius put a twist on the word "Foreknow" that had never been seen before in theology. You can read the full statement by the man himself that wrote this idea at the link below.

yes the Arminain view

Lets make this simple. A Calvinist would believe the word means what it says. Fore-loved.

yes, so I believe I was correct on my longer version of the definition, love biblically is for God to give Himself to someone unconditionally? God chose the elect from eternity past that He was going to "know" which isnt the kind of know from websters, but a literal pooring on of blessings eternal?

I have no idea what you are trying to say. But let me tell you this. Foreknowing is the loving that leads to election, and forces no one to make godly choices, but rather removes that which keeps them from making the choice in the beginning. The choice is still mans, it's just that he WILL now choose for he now understands his need.

I believe I understand, but my question is how is He sovereigly moving those who are not of the elect under Calvins view? I understand how God causes us to do good works out of a free willing heart (Holy Spirit). But it doesnt make sense to me how God under the Calvinist perspective is causing the non-elect to do exactly what He wants unless He is only seeing what they are doing which is similar to what the Arminians are saying He does for the elect (foresees making the will around the choice in a sense)? We know God is the cause of all that is good, and that He hates and has no part of evil while allowing it for a greater purpose to arise.
it is hard to explain, but I think this is a littler more clear than my last attempt..

Not at all. But you have hit upon a major problem with the Arminianism foreknowledge argument. Who does God know about? You see the problem? Because all that God knows about (using the Arminian argument), he also elects. All of them? Yes. That is what scipture says.

They simply define knowing in a webster's dictionary way, when the bible's definition is different.

 

[Allan]

They simply define knowing in a webster's dictionary way, when the bible's definition is different.

No brother, it is Greek defintion.

Look it up in any Theological lexicon of the Greek words and you will never find a definition declaring the term to refer to love.
The closest it comes is a Jewish idiom for se*ual int*rcouse, and that is used in a general way in scripture refering to man and wife as well as being with prostitutes and those raped.

You can even look in any Concordenance or bible dictionary.

The problem is that it is never used in this manner according to the word's historical usage, niether in it's biblical nor cultural language usage.


I will state this though.. The reformed position on this definition is more to do with what is considered to be implied than it is in it's actual defintion.
I have no real issue with the implication of love in foreknowledge I just have an issue with trying to state foreknowledge means foreloved as if that is it actaul meaning.

 

[Rippon]

deleted not worth it. Sorry Rippon.......

Changed my mind, (happy?)

Very,it doesn't happen much.

It can also be understood in manner that is typical of those who hold it and thus can actaully tell you what it refers to.

Thus the argument is much like that of Calvinism.
One side says they are followers of John Calvin
And the other says no it is simply a way to identify what we hold as a view.

Those Evangelical believers who are certainly not in the Calvinistic camp does not mean they are followers of Arminius.But their views are Arminianistic nevertheless.I would hope that few believers are semi-Pelagian.

 

[Rippon]

I waited patiently for several minutes before trying again and it still resulted in multiple posts.

 

[Rippon]

More of the same.The system is slooow.