Top 10 misconceptions about Calvinism

The Calvinist definition is more precise. The Arminian definition includes the idea that we have the ability to choose or reject God, but it says nothing about any other ability that we may or may not have. If there are any semantic games being played it is on the Arminian side.

Lacking the ability to choose God is no more outside the definition of "free" than is lacking the ability to walk on the ceiling, or to flap one's arms and fly.

 

There are semantic games being played on both sides.

I, for one, accept the Calvinistic technical definition of free will because it is indeed more precise. However, I merely include more in the realm of what one is able to choose.

I think "free will" is a misnomer on all sides. There is no such thing as a completely free will--we all have limitations. Historically and appropriately, the Calvinist/Arminian debate has focused on the ability or inability of the will in the matter of salvation.

My point was merely this--when the average Arminian says something of free will, he means something radically different than what a Calvinist might believe.

The OP is technically correct in its statement on the issue, but the connotations of the terms "free will" vary significantly.

 

Agreed.

 

Good post. It is sad that Christians cannot discuss theology without resorting to personal attack. I write this as one who over a period of years became convinced that the Doctrines of Grace were the doctrines taught in Scripture.

 

Good information here.

 

In my opinion, that wording is clouding the real issue. It "sounds good", but it's almost like you're hiding what you mean. Yes, man is "free" to do "whatever he wants" in Calvinism, but "whatever he wants" was imposed on him to begin with. So his will is not truly "free", but rather predetermined and he could do nothing else than what was predetermined.

Will and ability are two differnt things. Man is free to will to fly, but that doesn't mean he'll be able to.

When I use the term "free will", I mean a will that has not been restricted and inescapable by predetermination, a will that is not meticulously all laid out before I was even born.

 

So if man is unable to do then he does not have free will?

But wait - you just said ...

Oh, nevermind.

Didn't Joseph's brothers freely and willingly do what God planned for them to do? (See Genesis 50:20) Didn't Herod and Pilate and the Jews and the Romans freely and willingly crucify Christ, just as God had determined that they would? (See Acts 4:27-28) Predetermination does not exclude freedom or will.

 

Sure, using the Calvinistic semantics. But I'm pointing out that the did it "willingly" because God predetermined and imposed their will upon them in the first place.

BTW, that verse does not say God predetermined them to do that, only that what they meant for evil, God meant for God. They made a plan and carried it out, but God worked to make good result from it.

One is not "free" to will something other than what has been previously determined. They are limited to one thing in what they can will. That is not free will, that is bound will - bound to the inevitable, predetermined, inescapable plan.

 

HCSB - "You planned evil against me; God planned it for good to bring about the present result--the survival of many people."

ESV - "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today."

The Bible uses the same verb for God's actions as it does for the brothers' actions. They planned and He planned. They meant and He meant. It does not say that they acted and then He turned it around on them.

But you don't explain it the way the Bible does. You can't, because that wouldn't fit your logical understanding of free will.

What of Herod and Pilate and the Jews and the Romans? Did they not freely and willingly choose to crucify Christ?

Or what of Christ Himself? Was His death not predetermined? And yet, did He not freely and willingly lay down His life?

One contrary example disproves the rule, and as you know there is more than one example given in the Bible.

Sorry, I'll stick with the Bible. One can freely and willingly do that which one is predetermined to do.

 

No, "whatever he wants" comes about as a natural result of the sort of nature he inherited. It's not imposed. This is one of those places where God is passive in the way he accomplishes his decrees. His just decides to let humans be in this regard, and this is what happens through natural descent from corrupt human beings.

The person could not do anything else, but that isn't because of God's action, but because he descended from corruption and was born with a will in bondage to sin. He would no more free to choose God if God had predetermined nothing in regards to him, because his inner slavery to sin problem would still exist.

In the case of sinful actions and sinful decisions, God's decrees are a "rubber stamping", if you will, of the evil motives and desires that exist apart from God. God says, in effect, "I have decided that I am going to let that person go ahead and choose according to his evil motives and desires. I am not going to intervene to work a righteous choice."

 

I agree, that's not exactly what I meant to sound like. I believe God had pre-planned for any scenario, including the brother's plan, and if the brother's had done something differently, God would have that covered as well. What they meant for evil, God meant for good.

I believe that, like above, God had multiple scenarios covered. If Herod and Pilate had acted differently, God's plan would still be fulfilled, perhaps at another time or by someone else. I don't know but God does, and that's good enough for me.

I believe he submitted his will to the Father's will. Simple.

One contrary example does not prove the opposite rule. I believe that when God hardened pharoah's heart, etc., we are told of these examples because they are different from the norm. If they were the norm, never mind the only way it works, there would be no need to mention it in the first place.

Again, "willingly" because that will was thrust upon them in the first place. "freely" is not the word that should be used when no other option is possible - you are not "free" to make alternative choices.

 

Previous discussions would indicate whatever would disagree, and that there is "nothing" that is not caused by God.

Did not God predetermine man would have sin nature? You're talking about secondaries.

But he set up the whole scenario in the first place. What you are describing is like a scientist that builds and programs a robot to have evil motives and desires, and then turn him on and then sit back and say "I have decided that I am going to let that robot go ahead and choose according to his evil motives and desires. I am not going to intervene to work a righteous choice."

 

Good post. It is sad that Christians cannot discuss theology without resorting to personal attack. I write this as one who over a period of years became convinced that the Doctrines of Grace were the doctrines taught in Scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]The "Scripture" you here refer must be something other than the Holy Bible, which clearly does not teach Calvinism, even though you guys have deluded yourselves that it does.

 

You have it exactly backwards, as usual.

The Calvinist does not believe his will is only free to accept God. They believe that the will has been set free from the bondage of sin and death so they are able to accept God. </font>[/QUOTE]Cassidy, there you go again, in trying to show what other believe is wrong, when in fact what you say is complete nonsense. As I have said before, we non-Calvinists know more about your own doctrines than you guys do.

Your ignorance of the facts can be seen from your statement, "The Calvinist does not believe his will is only free to accept God". Wht, then, do you think "Irrestible Grace" means? It is that God is Sovereign and can overcome all resistance when He wills something. Again, the will is not set free so that you are "able" to believe, but, God by His grace which is irrestable, so "enables", by the working of the Holy Spirit, your will, so that your actions will be "predetermined", whether you will it or not. In other words, you "cannot" say no to His grace in Salvation.

This is standard in the Calvinistic theological books that I have (Hodge, Boettner, Dabney, etc), so don't try to say that I have got it backwards.

 

I still don't think your second sentence means the same thing as your third sentence. Let me ask you this - when God was pre-planning for each scenario, did He know for certain which scenario would take place? If not, then this is where you and I must part ways. If He did, then how does it help your case to say that He planned for various other scenarios that He knew would never happen?

Simple, but not helpful. Wasn't submitting to His Father's will a part of the predetermined plan to lay down His life? Did He freely and willingly submit to the Father's will, or did He have to be forced to do so?

Of course it doesn't prove the opposite rule. I haven't claimed that it does. I do believe the opposite rule, but I'm only trying to show here that whenever God does these things then the person involved is still acting freely and willingly. How often God does these things is a different question. At what point did Pharaoh do anything that he didn't want to do?

This is not to say that his choices were always easy, or that his decisions never contradicted earlier decisions. The choices placed before him were very difficult. But (as far as I can tell) the Bible never portrays Pharaoh or anyone else as being forced by God to act against his will, even in events that the Bible tells us were predetermined by God to take place. Also, the Bible doesn't say that because an event was predetermined that the person didn't make a choice. I know that idea gets wrapped around your axle, but that's just the way that the Bible talks about those events.

So now you're back to "free" meaning "able to do more than one thing". Can you provide an example of a case where the Bible says that people were doing what God ordained and therefore they weren't doing it freely and willingly?

 

You missed a few myths --