The route to Calvinism

[donnA]

I see no where they refused Christ. Context with the text Helen, I know you know this.
According to the op, this thread is about how a person came to believe the doctrines commonly named calvinism. if you want to discuss why you don't believe it, I suggest a new thread instead of constantly taking this one off topic.

 

[pinoybaptist]

The 'road to Calvinism' has to detour around a good number of Scriptures. Here is another one, which turned up on our calendar for today:

"Perhaps everyone will listen and turn from his evil way, that I may relent concerning the calamity which I purpose to bring on them because of the evil of their doings."
Jeremiah 26:3

Who is everyone ? And who is God addressing this to ? If everyone is all men including the Gentile tribes around national Israel, then why write specifically to Jews only ?
Where is the Scripture that says Old Testament prophets need to convince the Amalekites, the Jebusites, the Persians, and such other tribes to submit to Jehovah ?

 

[pinoybaptist]

Yes, they were chosen as God's people, His inheritance, actually. And they refused Christ.

So much for the effectual calling.

And if everyday people still go to hell whom God wanted to wind up in heaven really, then so much for the Omnipotence of God.

 

[John of Japan]

I agree with what Pastor Larry said above - neither side can "prove" that the other side is wrong. Frankly, I see Scripture that supports both sides. But the question is, how do you reconcile those opposing passages? I think that has a lot to do with our presuppositions and what priority we give to certain core doctrines. This gets into the area of epistemology, which I think is black box of sorts.

I find no need to reconcile those opposing passages. I just accept them. God is too big for our understanding. "I am content to let God have some secrets." (Dr. Monroe Parker)

 

[Helen]

And if everyday people still go to hell whom God wanted to wind up in heaven really, then so much for the Omnipotence of God.

Donna, the Scriptures documenting the Jewish people refusing Christ are many. Let me know if you want a list.

Pinoy, God is not willing that one should perish. The fact that people still choose against Him only shows He has allowed them that freedom of choice. That has nothing whatsoever to do with His omnipotence. He can do whatever He chooses to do. He is that omnipotent....

 

[donnA]

So are you saying the jews were not God's chosen people? You'd have to make your theory make sense. All through the o.t. the kews are God's chosen people. We have to change scripture for anything else.

 

[pinoybaptist]

The fact that people still choose against Him only shows He has allowed them that freedom of choice.

Where are the scriptures that shows God allows all of mankind, elect or otherwise, freedom of choice as to their eternal salvation or damnation ?
And where are your scriptures to show that man is absolutely capable in and of himself to choose God ?
And how do you define omnipotence, please ?

 

[Charles Meadows]

John of Japan is right. There is no way to reconcile the literal readings of all of this. Man cannot understand the depths of God. There is tension in scripture - like it or not. In a way we must submit ourselves to that.

While I have generally agreed with Calvinist tenets (except limited atonement) I, more than anything, object to the way "Calvinists" attempt to systematize everything. "Calvinism" becomes a lens through which we view the rest of scripture. That leads to statements like "God had to do ___ or He would not be just..." I think a red flag should go up every time we posit a statement that puts limitations on God based on a human theological scheme or on human lines of reason.

I would properly call myself "Amyraldian"! But then these labels are subject to change!

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan is right. There is no way to reconcile the literal readings of all of this. Man cannot understand the depths of God. There is tension in scripture - like it or not. In a way we must submit ourselves to that.

While I have generally agreed with Calvinist tenets (except limited atonement) I, more than anything, object to the way "Calvinists" attempt to systematize everything. "Calvinism" becomes a lens through which we view the rest of scripture. That leads to statements like "God had to do ___ or He would not be just..." I think a red flag should go up every time we posit a statement that puts limitations on God based on a human theological scheme or on human lines of reason.

I would properly call myself "Amyraldian"! But then these labels are subject to change!

Well said, Charles. :thumbs:

If I may provide another quote, I believe it was H. A. Ironside who said something like, "When you look at the gate from the outside it says, 'Whosoever will.' When you pass through and look back, it says, 'Elect in Him from before the foundation of the world!'"

 

[christianyouth]

I know that I am hopping in kinda late into this discussion, but I just felt I would share briefly how I came to embrace Calvinism.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits."

Augustine,Edwards,Whitefield, The Puritans (need I say more?), pretty much all of the Reformers who broke away from the Catholics, then more modernly, I began reading Sproul and people from ligonier.org and realized a completley different teaching caliber and regard for God's Word, so that said in my mind, "Hey, maybe there is something to this doctrine after all."

So, then I just studied the Bible for about a year, continued to meet with God in prayer, and finally my eyes were opened to it. It was not dramatic, but just gradual. I began to take piece in God's sovreignty, in His perfect plan for my life, ect.

So, basically I did not study out the issue until God had already been confirming it through the story of Joseph.

Right now I am a 5 pointer, but I am very sympathetic to Arminians. I am not like someone who used to be on here who deemed them all heretics, basically we both have our own theological paradigms that we read the Bible through, and it effects how we interpret passages. Presuppositions are a hard thing to throw away, very hard, and they can really do damage to an interpretation of the text, but God is bigger than presuppositions, and if we pray for wisdom, God says He will graciously bestow it upon us, and He certainly wont rebuke us for asking!


Andy

 

[webdog]

Augustine,Edwards,Whitefield, The Puritans (need I say more?), pretty much all of the Reformers who broke away from the Catholics, then more modernly, I began reading Sproul and people from ligonier.org and realized a completley different teaching caliber and regard for God's Word, so that said in my mind, "Hey, maybe there is something to this doctrine after all."

So, then I just studied the Bible for about a year, continued to meet with God in prayer, and finally my eyes were opened to it. It was not dramatic, but just gradual. I began to take piece in God's sovreignty, in His perfect plan for my life, ect.

Do you see what just happened? You came across the theology then studied the Scripture "and finally your eyes were opened to it". Do you think it's possible the influence from Augustine, Whitfield, Sproul, etc. could have had anything to do with how you you perceived Scripture after that?

While I'm not a calvinist, this is my story how I almost became one. I was probably a day (or book) away from becoming one. An elder in my church who I admire very much (a very godly man) mentioned to me that he was a calvinist and how he became one. This came as a surprise because for whatever reason, he would always talk about calvinistic doctrine in the phrase "there are some that believe...". I assumed he was talking about others besides himself, but it turns out he was referring to himself. To this day I'm still not real clear why he just never came out during his teaching and state "this is what I believe".

He told me that he came across this doctrine by reading a book by Pink, and then Sproul's Chosen By God (which I have read). His testimony sounded almost like that of christianyouth...it was then he went back through Scripture and found the "truth".
I have to wonder how an elder who has been a born again believer for so many years, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in studying the Scripture and teaching it for so long, can not come across this "truth" without reading a book by Pink. I know there are some here who claim to never having read any book by a calvinist, but I believe there has to be some kind of outside influence to become one. That's just my opinion. I have yet to come across anyone who got saved as a calvinist. Every calvinist I know was saved as a non cal. To understand calvinism takes a greater understanding of theology in general, which is hardly the "milk" described in Scripture a new beleiver needs. It's definately a steak that has sat on the grill a little too long...it's tough to chew.

Since I highly respect my elder friend, I thought I owed it to God and myself to learn this truth. I studied the five points and the "proof texts" supporting them. I asked God continually to open my mind to His truth in Scripture...that I didn't want to either believe or not believe something based on how I had always been taught. I studied with the sole intent on proving my view wrong with Scripture, and calvnism to be the truth.

I admit after reading some of Spurgeon, Macarthur, Sproul, etc., it sure sounded like these great men of God sure knew what they were talking about, and I should follow suit. Something would just not sit right within my soul, however. I kept praying and asking God to overcome this feeling and doubt, since calvinism must be the truth. Not only did God NOT do that, the more I studied it, the more put off I became by it, which made for a very uneasy time in my life, because this doctrine HAS to be true! All of these great theologians teach it! My elder friend believes it! Why is God not allowing this to sit easy in the pit of my soul if it's truth? What the heck is wrong with me!

In my devotions trying to prove my viewpoint to be incorrect, God made aware Scripture that seemed to jump off the pages in understanding the "hard" proof texts like Romans 9, Ephesians 1, etc., and it fit into the big picture, not the narrow one used by calvinists.

While I don't have all the answers (no kidding ), God has given me a peace about where I stand in contrast to Him and theology. Both cal's and non cal's abide by the basic, immutable truths of Scripture. We are brothers in Christ because of this. It's where we branch off in opposite directions in the road that leads us off the road to immutable truth.
Some things we will never know about God until we get to see Him face to face, and I'm fine with that. It's only when I see phrases like "God has to...", or "God does..." through the lens of TULIP that I have a problem with.

 

[Andy T.]

I find no need to reconcile those opposing passages. I just accept them. God is too big for our understanding. "I am content to let God have some secrets." (Dr. Monroe Parker)

Whether you like it or not, we all have to reconcile certain passages with others, i.e., "let Scripture interpret Scripture."

One example are the few verses where it says "Repent and be baptized." A Campbellite uses these verses to support his false doctrine of baptismal regeneration, while we would argue that other Scriptures teaching faith alone shed light on those verses. We don't just throw up our hands and say, "It's all a mystery!" Granted, there are some aspects of God and his ways that are mysterious to us (glass darkly), and I suspect each of us draws that line at different places than others.

 

[skypair]

1. I for one do not worship calvin or his dirt. I worship God and believe His word. I do not change the meaning of elect.
2. The bible specifies that Adam's sin is passed on to each man(humans, not just men).
3. God tells us why He chooses who He choose, based soley on Him, and not us.
I have never done anything to make worthy of Him choosing me, neither has anyone else.

Hi, DonnA :wavey:

1. You are sending mixed signals -- you "worship God" and "don't change the meaning of elect." The "elect" are believers regardless of when it is established that they would believe. The "elect" are NOT random or arbitrary people who are assigned by God to belief (Calvinism). They are people that made their own decisions -- decisions which God foreknew (FW). Only one of those meanings is biblically viable because God promises that He will save ALL who believe on Him -- "...as many as received Him..." John 1.

2. That an interpretation, DonnA. You realize that, right? Cause Ezek 18:20 says we CANNOT inherit sin from our parents. Most will agree it is "sin nature" that we inherit and go from there in describing what sin nature is, but it cannot be sin guilt.

3. Well, I should hope you have! Do you not think "belief" is "worthy?" Would God save you in spite of your unbelief?

"He chooses who He choose, based soley on Him,..." That's insincere, DonnA. He tells us why He chooses who He does. It's on account of belief. Why would you ever tell people to believe if salvation wasn't the direct effect of believing?

skypair

 

[skypair]

So are you saying the jews were not God's chosen people? You'd have to make your theory make sense. All through the o.t. the kews are God's chosen people. We have to change scripture for anything else.

DonnA, I'm getting the sense that you believe that Calvinists are "chosen people" just like Israel were "chosen people." Is that true?

Because Israel was not all saved -- neither are all Calvinists. So what allows unbelieving Calvinists to do good any more than unbelieving Jews? What makes it possible for God to make the offer of repentance to them if they can't do good?

Again, the definition of "elect" that you use is flawed despite your dictionary offerings. In the Bible it means those individuals who believe or those peoples who are marked out for some purpose of God (say: Gog of Megog, Tubal, etc.). Even if the people are marked out for a godly purpose, they can individually be lost (which makes the claim of Calvinists to be "elect" rather hollow, doesn't it?).

skypair

 

[npetreley]

"He chooses who He choose, based soley on Him,..." That's insincere, DonnA. He tells us why He chooses who He does. It's on account of belief. Why would you ever tell people to believe if salvation wasn't the direct effect of believing?

skypair

He also tells us WHY we believe, and it comes from Him, not because of anything in us. So it does come down to the fact that He chooses who He chooses, based solely on Him.

 

[amity]

He told me that he came across this doctrine by reading a book by Pink, and then Sproul's Chosen By God (which I have read). His testimony sounded almost like that of christianyouth...it was then he went back through Scripture and found the "truth".
I have to wonder how an elder who has been a born again believer for so many years, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in studying the Scripture and teaching it for so long, can not come across this "truth" without reading a book by Pink. I know there are some here who claim to never having read any book by a calvinist, but I believe there has to be some kind of outside influence to become one. That's just my opinion. I have yet to come across anyone who got saved as a calvinist. Every calvinist I know was saved as a non cal. To understand calvinism takes a greater understanding of theology in general, which is hardly the "milk" described in Scripture a new beleiver needs. It's definately a steak that has sat on the grill a little too long...it's tough to chew.

I would almost agree with you, webdog. Of course the doctrine of "believe and thou shalt be saved" is the milk of the gospel, the first message. Then as a believer matures, it is important to understand

"according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved."​

And yes the meat is of course tougher. It is a more advanced concept. But the only thing that makes it unpalatable is the indoctrination most Americans receive about it, which is based on total misrepresentation, as we often see on this forum.

These two doctrines actually dovetail nicely, but they are not necessarily revealed to a believer simultaneously. On the other hand, most predestinarians do arrive at them simply by studying the Bible and prayer. My pastor once said someone asked him where election was taught in the Bible. He answered "On every page!"

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Do you see what just happened? You came across the theology then studied the Scripture "and finally your eyes were opened to it". Do you think it's possible the influence from Augustine, Whitfield, Sproul, etc. could have had anything to do with how you you perceived Scripture after that?

I'm not the person who wrote what webdog is criticizing, but I wanted to add my comment nonetheless.
As Christians we read the Bible with only the perspective that we know and accept at that time.
However, as we continue to read and study, both the Bible and/or Christian material, we may be presented with a differing perspective that may cause us to change our beliefs on some doctrinal topics. I would submit that is indeed what the writer was attempting to express. It was not until he read and understood those other men's writings that he was able to read his Bible from a different viewpoint.
IOW, his glasses had changed prescription due to new stimuli presented.
What's wrong with acknowledging a change of beliefs when new material is presented that you previously were not aware?
We do it all the time in "secular matters". We believe one report and then new findings cause us to adjust our thinking and opinions.
With regards to spiritual matters, God's Spirit had not previously opened the eyes to understand until perhaps familiar content was preached a different way or a new interpretation was offered that previously was unknown.

I think webdog is barking down the wrong hole.
There is no reason to conclude that Calvinism cannot be true or trustworthy because people find its teaching in sermons or articles written by God's people which then leads them to study their Bibles with a new perspective on truth.

As for why many Christians today are not saved with the understanding of Calvinism, that's a fairly obvious answer. Most churches have abandoned the doctrines of grace that once enjoyed popularity in many churches in North America, Europe and the UK and instead proclaim a synergistic message which is contrary to the Bible.

Calvinism is not harder or tougher to understand from an intellectual standpoint; it's simply goes against that which man likes to believe about himself and God.

 

[skypair]

John of Japan is right. There is no way to reconcile the literal readings of all of this. Man cannot understand the depths of God. There is tension in scripture - like it or not. In a way we must submit ourselves to that.

Charles -- it's a growth process. When you were in kindergarten, electrical engineering was still out there to be known. Proverbs further says "it is the glory of God to conceal a thing and the honor of kings [that's us - "kings and priests, Rev 1] is to search out a matter." (25:2)

The fact is that as we grow, we should be trying to reconcile these things. Paul calls that, not the unity of the Spirit by which we were all saved, but "the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God." Eph 4:13 That is, we should be growing in a common faith and knowledge of these things, not in some exclusive understanding of them that precludes all others.

This is what bothers me about Calvinism (re: Eph 4:13) -- it is intractible, unteachable. I have come to some understandings about Calvinist terms that seem to accomodate both sides (sovereignty of man in his salvation -- sovereignty of God in all consequences. or this, faith is a gift [1Cor 12:8] but belief is a condition of salvation, etc.) but the face of Calvinism I see does not try to grow into these "depths of God's" wisdom but would rather leave them unexamined.

While I have generally agreed with Calvinist tenets (except limited atonement) I, more than anything, object to the way "Calvinists" attempt to systematize everything. "Calvinism" becomes a lens through which we view the rest of scripture. That leads to statements like "God had to do ___ or He would not be just..." I think a red flag should go up every time we posit a statement that puts limitations on God based on a human theological scheme or on human lines of reason.

AMEN, Charles!!

skypair

 

[skypair]

Webdog,

I agree with much of your testimony. "At first blush," Calvinism looks very reasonable, especially Total Depravity. Concepts like "total soveriengty" jibe with everything in the Bible except man's individual moral freedom. In that, just examining my conscience told me that I could recognize God's right and wrong whether I knew it was God's or just sensed it.

Plus, like you said, I didn't come to Christ through Calvinism -- haven't personally known anyone who has either.

I think Calvinism needs to reexamine its tenets in light of "the unity of faith and knowledge" that is found in the Baptist church. There are so many things about which Calvinism is outdated -- prophecy, Israel, etc. It seems more like an "ecclesiaology" than a "theology" to me.

skypair

 

[amity]

Webdog,

I agree with much of your testimony. "At first blush," Calvinism looks very reasonable, especially Total Depravity. Concepts like "total soveriengty" jibe with everything in the Bible except man's individual moral freedom. In that, just examining my conscience told me that I could recognize God's right and wrong whether I knew it was God's or just sensed it.

Plus, like you said, I didn't come to Christ through Calvinism -- haven't personally known anyone who has either.

I think Calvinism needs to reexamine its tenets in light of "the unity of faith and knowledge" that is found in the Baptist church. There are so many things about which Calvinism is outdated -- prophecy, Israel, etc. It seems more like an "ecclesiaology" than a "theology" to me.

skypair

Guys, what you are saying is really pretty strange. Did you come to trust Christ through reading Arminius? or anyone else? Obviously no one ever came to trust Christ through reading Calvin, either! Hopefully everyone just reads the Bible and tries to understand what it is saying. But when we do that, we are not likely to come up with a totally individual and unique interpretation either, although some few of us do. IF one wishes to study theology in addition to the Bible, and it is a pretty big IF, then that is when one can pick up the works of a theologian.

Meanwhile, I am plain worn out reading denunciations of Calvinism (and Arminianism) from people who obviously have very little idea what either teaches. Can't we understand our own thought processes without resort to either?