The hidden dangers of Calvinism

[HankD]

Those who believe in sovereign election deny only that an unregenerate man has the freedom of the will to excercise saving faith in Christ.

The unregenerate man has freedom of the will to choose among the myriad sins to whom he is (as we all were) in bondage.

That bondage being sin as a general principle of life as opposed to faith.

Now as to the danger of any given systematic theology.
To be sure this is an oversimplification of the two general views of this unending controversy:

1) Some consider that God regenerates first then follows faith.
2) Some consider that faith comes first then follows regeneration.

What does it really matter?

If God grants the faith that leads to regeneration or causes regeneration which brings forth faith.

Where is the danger of either view?

GOD IS STILL THE SOVEREIGN AUTHOR OF A SALVATION THAT NO MAN CAN ACCOMPLISH IN ANY OF IT"S ASPECTS.

The paradox is that both views are taught in the very same portion of Scripture:

John 1

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.​

There is a third minority view which is my understanding.

Regeneration and faith are simultaneous gifts from the hand of God.

James 1

16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.
17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

I mildly disagree with "unconditional election" from this very passage:

18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.​

The condition is that we are begotten "of His own will"

 

[Pastor Larry]

Those who believe in sovereign election deny only that an unregenerate man has the freedom of the will to excercise saving faith in Christ.

This is because it is not a proper object of his power, or of his nature. He has no desire to exercise saving faith in Christ.

There is a third minority view which is my understanding.

Regeneration and faith are simultaneous gifts from the hand of God.

I think this is actually the majority view of Calvinism. Faith and regeneration happen at the same time. Regeneration is logically prior, but chronologically simultaneou.

 

[HankD]

Those who believe in sovereign election deny only that an unregenerate man has the freedom of the will to excercise saving faith in Christ.

The unregenerate man has freedom of the will to choose among the myriad sins to whom he is (as we all were) in bondage.

That bondage being sin as a general principle of life as opposed to faith.

Now as to the danger of any given systematic theology:

Some consider that God regenerates then follows faith.
Some consider that faith comes first then follows regeneration.

True, an oversimplification of what's going on with the very essence of this unending controversy.

But what does it really matter?

If God grants faith that leads to regeneration or regenerates which brings forth faith.

Where is the danger of either view?

God alone is still the Sovereign Author of the salvation of mankind in all of it's aspects.

Where then is the danger of either?

The paradox is that both views are taught (seemingly) in the Scripture and that in the very same portion of Scripture:

John 1
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, (view 2) even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (view 1).

There is a minority 3rd view which I prefer.
They are 2 sides of the same coin, simultaneous gifts from the hand of God

James 1
16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.
17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

As an aside: From the next verse in this passage comes my “mild” disagreement with “unconditional election”

18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

And then:

KJV Ephesians 1
11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:


The condition for "election" involves God's purpose after “the counsel of his own will”.

I suppose the above objection is a given for TULIParians but in my view "U" is a misnomer which detracts from the "purpose" part of election. "(U)nconditional" is too willy-nilly for me.

HankD

 

[HankD]

Hmmm how did these two almost identical posts by me above happen?

OK it looks like the last one is the completed post.

HankD

 

[gb93433]

An unbeliever is an old man with an old nature. A believer is a new man (the old man has died) with two natures that war against each other. So while the unbeliever with an old nature can do nothing of a new nature, the believer with both natures can either sin or obey God.

Then whose choice to sin or obey, or would you take the position that God gives no choice?

 

[gb93433]

Calvinism agrees on some main key points, such as man's complete sinfulness and God's electing grace. It does not, and never has, agreed on every little detail of those.

That is why I named it like a greased pig. Discussing Calvinism seems to be discussing something that is quite slippery and few have read what Calvin actually wrote.

If you have studied Calvinism, you know there is widespread agreement on what it stands for. You know it is not about following Calvin. And my bet is that you have studied it enough to know this. So it boggles my mind as to why you make this silly accusations that Calvinists follow a man.

I agree it is not about following a man but so many claim to agree with what he wrote. To my surprise after reading what he actually wrote I found that so many who claim to agree with him have never read any of his works but have read what someone else wrote about what he thought Calvin wrote.
My Bible says that you cannot serve two masters. Paul in 1 Cor. condemned the labelling of one another into camps—I am of Paul, etc. It does not edify, it does not correct any improper doctrine, and does it encourage one another. I see no evidence that it helps to correctly interpretation of scripture. Discussions about calvinism do not serve any purpose to help one another correctly interpret scripture and live a godly life. I would agree that discussing a man is one thing and discussing various passages is quite another. I am challenged by Calvin’s discipline in terms of study but I am not challenged by his interpretation of scripture. Having read his work challenged me to look more closely at scripture instead of him.

Perhaps your experience is that there is widespread agreement. My experience has not proven that. I have met many who claim to be calvinists and have never read any of Calvin's works. I simply cannot understand how anyone could claim to read something second hand or even claim to agree with something they think is right without any kind of verification. That is one of the problems we have in the church today. We have pastors and those in the congregation who buy into what the church gurus tell them without ever checking to see what scripture teaches. We have too many who listen top others and read books written by their favorite pastor, etc. but have little knowledge of the Bible and even fewer making disciples.

Calvinism is not something that is necessary to know about to make disciples and live a godly life. Knowing God and what the Bible teaches is a must for both making disciples and living a godly life.

Whether Calvinists are right or wrong, they believe what they do because they believe it is what Scripture teaches.

While I have a lot of respect for one who has convictions and agree that is commendable, it is always possible that one or the other or both of us may be wrong. That is the very reason why we must take a look at scripture and let it confirm, deny, or correct what we believe.

After looking at various passages about election using a concordance I have found that I do not agree with what I have heard many calvinists teach concerning election. I do not agree with what I have felt most arminianists believe concerning salvation either. So what camp am I in?
We ought to be challenged by the question, "What if the God we think we know is not the God who is?"

 

[gb93433]

John Calvin stuck extra close to the text.Calvin was not a speculative theologian.He warned his readers not to venture beyond what the Scriptures declare.

Calvin also wrote that should his theology be carried too far there would be problems.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Then whose choice to sin or obey, or would you take the position that God gives no choice?

Man chooses to disobey.

That is why I named it like a greased pig. Discussing Calvinism seems to be discussing something that is quite slippery and few have read what Calvin actually wrote.

But you named it wrongly. It's not slippery at all. In the main, Calvinists agree. And it has little if anything to do with what Calvin wrote.

My Bible says that you cannot serve two masters. Paul in 1 Cor. condemned the labelling of one another into camps—I am of Paul, etc. It does not edify, it does not correct any improper doctrine, and does it encourage one another. I see no evidence that it helps to correctly interpretation of scripture.

Then quit talking about Calvin.

Discussions about calvinism do not serve any purpose to help one another correctly interpret scripture and live a godly life.

Discussions about Calvinism are or should be discussions about Scripture. That does help us properly understand how to live.

Perhaps your experience is that there is widespread agreement. My experience has not proven that.

There is. Your experience is apparently very limited. In terms of soteriology, virtually all Calvinists agree that man is totally depraved and unable to come to God, that God uncondtionally elects men to salvation, that Christ's death is sufficient for all sinners but efficient only for the elect, that God effectuall calls people to salvation, and that true believers persevere. I don't know of any Calvinist who disagrees with any of those.

I have met many who claim to be calvinists and have never read any of Calvin's works. I simply cannot understand how anyone could claim to read something second hand or even claim to agree with something they think is right without any kind of verification.

That's because you still don't get the fact that CAlvinism is not about Calvin, but about the Scriptures. To be a Calvinist, all one needs to do is read the Scriptures.

That is one of the problems we have in the church today. We have pastors and those in the congregation who buy into what the church gurus tell them without ever checking to see what scripture teaches.

This is contradictory. You complain that too many Calvinists haven't read Calvin and then say that people should read their Bibles. Which is it? Do you want people reading Calvin or the Bible? I prefer the latter.

Calvinism is not something that is necessary to know about to make disciples and live a godly life. Knowing God and what the Bible teaches is a must for both making disciples and living a godly life.

Indeed, and by reading the Bible, one will often become what is known as a Calvinist, because it comes right out of Scripture.

After looking at various passages about election using a concordance I have found that I do not agree with what I have heard many calvinists teach concerning election.

I don't know how to respond to this since I don't know what you mean. Your understanding of Calvinism seems somewhat flawed here so until I know what you mean I will withhold comment.

We ought to be challenged by the question, "What if the God we think we know is not the God who is?"

The only way that question can be answered is in the Scriptures, not in Calvin. So rather than complaining that Calvinists don't read Calvin, be glad we read the Bible.

 

[gb93433]

Man chooses to disobey.

But you named it wrongly. It's not slippery at all. In the main, Calvinists agree. And it has little if anything to do with what Calvin wrote.

Help me to understand why you call yourself a calvinist if you do not know what Calvin taught. I find it interesting that I have not met many Presbyterians who call themselves calvinists but many Baptists do. You say it has little or anything to do with Calvin. Then how does Calvin's name get interjected?

Discussions about Calvinism are or should be discussions about Scripture. That does help us properly understand how to live.

You are wrong and right. Scripture yes. Calvin, no.

Romans 3:3, 4, "What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found]a liar, as it is written, "That You may be justified in Your words, And prevail when You are judged."

There is. Your experience is apparently very limited. In terms of soteriology, virtually all Calvinists agree that man is totally depraved and unable to come to God, that God unconditionally elects men to salvation, that Christ's death is sufficient for all sinners but efficient only for the elect, that God effectually calls people to salvation, and that true believers persevere. I don't know of any Calvinist who disagrees with any of those.

I agree with your statement but I do not call myself a calvinist. I call myself Christian following Christ. When I speak with people I do not call myself a Baptist. I am there for the purpose of reaching them not trying to add another label to confuse them and add to the discussion. I have had many a person come to me for help because they have listened to someone who claimed to have read some of the calvinist tracts, etc. and it led them astray with loads of confusion. I have seen too many who were once sharing their faith as young Christians stop because they saw election and evangelism as something that cannot coexist. They began to see evangelism as a waste of time because if God had already chosen who the elect were then why evangelize? Years later I began a dialog with a man who left a church and declared himself as no longer a Christian. His main reason for leaving the faith was the encounters he had with the church he attended. If I remember right he was an elder in the church. From what I can recall his objections stemmed from what the pastor taught about a particular systematic theology. Years ago I just about shipwrecked on that same thing. Today that man has a website that openly declares his anti-Christian ignorance presented as fact. From that point in time I determined that I would not spend time teaching a systematic theology but rather to preach and teach what scripture teaches. I believe that if people understand what scripture teaches they will never leave the faith unless they choose to be disobedient such as Judas. That is the main reason why I am very much against any kind of . . . . .isms which includes Bible believing Christians.

Would it not make sense that:
Mormonism is a theology that follows the book of Mormon.
Catholicism is a theology that follows the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Calvinism is a theology that follows Calvin's teachings.

That's because you still don't get the fact that Calvinism is not about Calvin, but about the Scriptures. To be a Calvinist, all one needs to do is read the Scriptures.

I get the fact and a destructive, unedifying one at that.
For seven years I read and studied the Bible and had never heard of calvinism until I moved to another location in the U.S. where the calvinists and hypercalvinists were troublemakers and even questioned their own salvation. Before that time Christ was the issue, not calvinism and its attributes. To this day I have never had one discussion with a non-Christian about calvinism.

This is contradictory. You complain that too many Calvinists haven't read Calvin and then say that people should read their Bibles. Which is it? Do you want people reading Calvin or the Bible? I prefer the latter.

Why read Calvin when there is a serious Bible illiteracy in America today? Simply compare what Sunday School teachers required from their attenders just fifty years ago to what is required now.

Perhaps I just don’t get it but how could you could not possibly call yourself a calvinist if all you knew was the Bible. That vocabulary would not exist. For example you could not possibly claim to follow Mithraism unless you studied its teachings. So again how could anyone claim to be a calvinist if you have never studied the teachings of Calvin?

My accusation is that too many have applied a name to themselves and they know little or nothing about what it represents.

Indeed, and by reading the Bible, one will often become what is known as a Calvinist, because it comes right out of Scripture.

Show me one mention of Calvin in the Bible.

I don't know how to respond to this since I don't know what you mean. Your understanding of Calvinism seems somewhat flawed here so until I know what you mean I will withhold comment.

Your idea of calvinism is much like what Catholics do concerning mariology. When confronted, many Catholics will claim that they do not believe that doctrine and keep right on truckin'. Mormons do the same thing as Catholics when confronted about the teachings once taught just 20 years ago.

Read what many write and preach about Eph. 1:3-14. That passage is a prayer of thanksgiving not about election. It is written in the same standard form of a letter of that day. Yet so many I have read choose to declare it as a teaching about election when it is not. If one had listened to teh same teaching about the doctrine of election when I was a young Christian and place it on top pof that passage they would get an incorrect teaching of election and that passage.

The only way that question can be answered is in the Scriptures, not in Calvin. So rather than complaining that Calvinists don't read Calvin, be glad we read the Bible.

I do not question whether or not they read the Bible. I seriously question their interpretation of particular passages. That can be discussed without ever mentioning calvinism. We can walk together in an effort to try and determine what scripture actually teaches. That is edifying and building.
While I agree with what you mentioned the Bible teaches I do not find anything other than being a Christian to be a necessary label. It does not open any doors for discussion or a better understanding of the Bible.

 

[Jim1999]

Anabaptists did not claim that name. It was applied to them because they "baptized" again.

Originally baptists were labelled by others, and baptists have tried down the years to all but rid their church names from baptist. Even Mr. Spurgeon had the Metropolitan Tabernacle!

The term calvinists was given to us because we essentially agreed with his delination of theology. The Bible itself is a random garden of truth. Theology is simply the orderly garden of truth. Calvinism is just one of those theologies. We discuss calvinism in here and in school, but I doubt very much if any true calvinists stand in the pulpit and delineate the main features of calvinism; we essentially preach the word! We teach the word and the word happens to include the five points, or variations thereof, of calvinism as they were presented as a defence against arminianism.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Rippon]

Calvin also wrote that should his theology be carried too far there would be problems.

This is the third time that I have asked you to document that.

 

[Rippon]

The Bible itself is a random garden of truth.

What do you mean by that Jim?I find nothing "random" about the Bible.

 

[Rippon]

I am not challenged by his interpretation of scripture.

That proves you don't know what you are talking about.

Having read his work challenged me to look more closely at scripture instead of him.

Well that's very true.John Calvin would have endosed that 100%.

... we must take a look at scripture and let it confirm, deny, or correct what we believe.

All very true.All Calvinists would agree.

After looking at various passages about election using a concordance I have found that I do not agree with what I have heard many calvinists teach concerning election.

Then back to the drawing board you will have to go.

I do not agree with what I have felt most arminianists believe concerning salvation either. So what camp am I in?

I would like to know what you disagree with in the Arminian scheme.

 

[Jim1999]

By random garden, as opposed to an orderly garden, means simply that whilst the Bible teaches certain things one must search all over sometimes to find it. Theology sorts everything out and puts in logical order.

Both teach the same.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Rippon]

I find it interesting that I have not met many Presbyterians who call themselves calvinists but many Baptists do.

Only the liberal Presbyterians wouldn't use the Calvinist designation.

I have had many a person come to me for help because they have listened to someone who claimed to have read some of the calvinist tracts, etc. and it led them astray with loads of confusion. I have seen too many who were once sharing their faith as young Christians stop because they saw election and evangelism as something that cannot coexist. They began to see evangelism as a waste of time because if God had already chosen who the elect were then why evangelize?

Why is that non-Calvinists such as yourself have these unique experiences?I have never had such an encounter."Many a person"huh?I think you have an overly active imagination.

My accusation is that too many have applied a name to themselves and they know little or nothing about what it represents.

And you still don't have a handle on the subject either.

 

[gb93433]

This is the third time that I have asked you to document that.

I have those books packed away in another state. So I cannot give you the precise location of that. I just remember reading it. It was in Calvin's Institutes.

 

[HankD]

Hasn't someone given these URL's?

The Institutes can be found online at:

http://www.vor.org/rbdisk/calvin/ci_html/index.html

It can also be downloaded as an HTML File

http://www.vor.org/rbdisk/calvin/ci_html.htm

HankD

 

[Jarthur001]

Hi Jarthur001

You quoted the words of John Piper.........

Then I said...........

Then you asked..........

--------------------------------------------------
Well here it is again(the words of John Piper)........

I know full well what piper said...I was the one that posted it. I also know he did not dismiss or say Calvinism is wrong....which for some reason you think he did. Maybe its because you don't know as much as you claim. It is clear you do not understand his point. Piper is expressing his view or interpretation of the passage, teaching that God has two "wills"—a general, ineffectual will that all men should be saved, and a special, redemptive purpose to save his elect people.

I feel the two will view is not needed. I'm not saying Piper is out in left field, I just believe the classic Calvinist side in this one. I have already showed why, and showed support in the context. This cannot be over looked.

--------------------------------------------------
Now, you and others have said several times, that “we don’t understand Calvinism”;
(Maybe you are right!)

Thanks...now we agree.

I just have one question to ask........
“Can a person be a Calvinist and accept the free will of man?

”

yes and no.

I'm not trying to be hard on you, but this is really the answer given the way you asked it. Choice of all things comes from our love and desire. IN that way, Yes...Man has free-will. Does man have free-will to choose God? No...he is bound by his desires. One must be born again in order to have the understanding and see the need for salvation.

If this is a case, than your right, I have misjudged Calvinism!

I'm not really sure what case you are trying to make on this one....

But you have misjudged even if you don't know it yet.

 

[Jarthur001]

Would it not make sense that:
Mormonism is a theology that follows the book of Mormon.
Catholicism is a theology that follows the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Calvinism is a theology that follows Calvin's teachings.

Its a helpless case, if you will not listen.

 

[Jarthur001]

Now, you and others have said several times, that “we don’t understand Calvinism”;
(Maybe you are right!)

I just have one question to ask........
“Can a person be a Calvinist and accept the free will of man?”

If this is a case, than your right, I have misjudged Calvinism!

Now the other side of what you just asked.

You seem to think that if someone does not believe in mans free-will it is a bad thing.

Why do you see this is a bad thing? Is this a "danger" of Calvinism?

******

Added later...

I'm still waiting on Romans 9. You are dangerously close to sliding over what I asked.