Some general questions about Calvinism.

[puritan lad]

My beef is that I believe Calvinism starts with a philosophical framework that is itself not drawn from Scripture and then constructs and lays out the Bible with emphasis upon a few select passages which do not fully embrace all that Scripture has to say on the subject.

I would disagree. That's what the debate is about. I don't begin with a philosophical framework. I begin with Scripture as a whole.

In any case, I would hope that no one would used this article as a basis for anything remotely biblical. Not only is it lacking biblical and historical scholarship, but is way outside of Christian Orthodoxy (either Pelagian or Open Theism). I'm surprised that anyone would use this article to defend any position, but since it's been done, it's fair game.

"The Calvinistic system . . . its fundamental defect of confining the saving grace of God and the atoning work of Christ to a small circle of the elect, and ignoring the general love of God to all mankind (John 3:16). It is a theology of Divine sovereignty rather than Divine love; . . . Arminianism is a reaction against scholastic Calvinism.[1]"

Calvinism does not ignore the general (providential) love for mankind. But it does confine the saving grace of God and the atoning work of Christ to the elect. Calling it a defect is clearly begging the question. (Haven't read the entire piece, but I'm pretty sure that Schaff was a Calvinist, so this quote, if taken in context, is interesting to say the least. I could be mistaken, but I'll have to read up on this to see what Schaff actually said.)

"The doctrine of election is but a part of the much broader Biblical doctrine of God's absolute sovereignty . . . that all events, both small and great, come about as the result of God's eternal decree.[9]

Here is the crux of the issue - Calvin's doctrine of "absolute sovereignty" and an "eternal decree"[10] which determines all things. It is here that the Greco-Renaissance roots of Calvinistic philosophy betray themselves, for this view closely parallels the Stoic view of Zeus as a universal mind and will which had determined all things, thus making every man’s choices and actions externally fixed according to his "destiny."

What nonsense. Calvinism gets its vew of election and absolute sovereignty from the Bible.

I don't know the author, but he is clearly outside of Christian Orthodoxy in his denial of original sin (see his attempt to explain away Psalm 51:5. He's not an Arminian, but a full-fledged Pelagian.

The Greek term for "appointed" (tetagmenoi, from tasso), is spelled the same in both the passive (action done to the subject) and middle (subject participates in the action of the verb) voice. Calvinists take it as passive, but context makes it more likely that Gentiles participated in their election in the same sense that unbelieving Jews participated in their condemnation (v. 46).

What a mess, so here is the challenge. Find one place in the Bible where tasso or protasso means anything other than a passive appointment.

Also, as I added earlier, the "Calvinist" belief system regarding salvation did not originate with Calvin. It was the belief of the church until the Pelagian heresy began to gain ground under the emperor Zosimus (spelling?). Certainly Augustine was not influenced by the culture of the Reformation.

If necessary, I'll add more. But this should be enough to bury this article in th ash heap where it belongs.

[jlay]

"For those whom (people) he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." (Romans 8:29)

You forgot to undline forknew. Whoops. How does God's forknowledge not play a role, if this says it in fact does?
For those whom (would stand in the circle) he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son...........
Regardless, it doesn't deal with the main issue I'm addressing here. That being is Calvinistic predestination actually preprogramming?

This is not sound exegesis, but theological desperation. Two problems:

1.) God did not predestine a circle. He predestines people, and he predestined them to adoption. Predestination only has one definition, and we all know what it is (though we may or may not like it).

Depseration? Spare the rhetoric. The circle is only an analogy, of those who place their faith in Christ. God obviously saves those who are in His son, not in a actual cirlce. But it is good exegesis that those individuals are in a special group. The church, the body of Christ. So, I fail to see where you've shown where its faulty. I see where you don't agree, and I wouldn't expect you to, because it doesn't comply with Calvinism. Failing to comply with Calvinism is not failure to comply with the scriptures.
He predestinates the church, and those individuals in it.
He has chosen, "us"
Even in the old testament, God chose a people. Israel. Isaiah 44:1 Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen:
Does that mean all the Israelites were on board? True Jews? If they were chosen, then why did they reject? How could they?

Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
Whey would God call rebrobates who are unable to respond? My analogy certainly better complies as far as I can see.

2.) Such a view denies that Christ made any actual payment for sins at Calvary (unless he paid for a circle), as well as denies that Christ knows His Sheep.

Only in your determined view of Calvinism. Saying that doesn't make it so. I fail to see how the analogy denies Christ's payment for sins. And how it denies that Christ knows His sheep.

Calvinism gets its vew of election and absolute sovereignty from the Bible.

I think there are quite a few who would vehemently disagree.

[Maytan]

I'm curious as to what you would have to say about this, Puritan Lad. It's taken from the article I posted a couple pages back in this thread.

Universal vs. Limited Atonement

Some Calvinists will argue that a universal principle does exist in the atonement. The death of Christ, they say, has secured many non-redemptive benefits for mankind in general. This they frequently sum up under the heading of "common grace." Boettner writes:

"God makes His sun to shine on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. Many temporal blessings are thus secured for all men, although these fall short of being sufficient to insure salvation."16

Where do the Scriptures ever state that temporal blessings in the natural realm - sunshine, rain, etc. - were secured for mankind by Christ's death? There is not a shred of evidence for this idea; it is entirely philosophical and conjectural.

In the debate over the extent of the atonement, Calvinists will point to Scriptures connecting Christ's death to a specific people: his sheep (John 10:11); his friends (John 15:13); "many" (Heb. 9:28). Arminians will produce passages indicating that Jesus died for the "whole world" (1 John 2:2); "all" (2 Cor. 5:15); "every man" (Heb. 2:9).

These texts can be harmonized when we consider that the redemptive benefits of Christ's death are both specific and universal. God has placed the life-giving fountain of Christ's blood in His Church. Our Lord "loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Eph. 5:25). The Church was "bought with his own blood" (Acts 20:28). That makes the atonement of Christ specific; it was for His Church.

But the atonement is universal in the sense that the Church's gates are wide open to "everyone who calls" (Rom. 10:13), to "him who is thirsty" (Rev. 21:6), to "all you who are weary and burdened" (Matt. 11:28). The invitation to believe, be baptized and enter the Church extends to "every tribe and language and people and nation" (Rev. 5:9). In that sense, the atonement is universal and available to all.

Or, looking at in another way, Christ's blood is "the blood of the covenant" (Matt. 26:28). Jesus died for those in the covenant of grace, not for those outside of it. Is that fatalism? Not at all. Anyone may enter that covenant by becoming a Christian. It is open-ended. The atonement, therefore, is both limited and universal. It is both specific and general.

[Canuckster1127]

I think others should read the article for themselves and consider the overall sense of what it says in drawing in the background, methodology and mechanics of Calvinism and then look at all the other elements, including the end elements of exegesis that you clearly (and predictably) will dislike because they don't align with your assertion of what is "Biblical" as opposed to in line with the framework, you've constructed.

Attempting to (again, not surprisingly) bring an all or nothing assessment of it and by asserting elements (which you may or may not be correct in doing) might be questionable is hardly grounds for a rejecting of all that it has to say.

You may feel free to do whatever you wish with the article as it is indeed "fair game." I hope others will feel free to examine it and consider it as fair game and examine it on it's own merits. By my own admission, it's not a perfect article and I don't agree with every element of it. I think it does a very credible job however of giving a good high view to many concerns about Calvinism and Reformed Theology that should be considered by anyone addressing the issues of this thread.

[DannyM]

Jlay, you make the most sense on this. I may have to become a jlayist. I'll need to study you some more before I take the plunge. Of course I'm jesting. But you put it nice and succinct.

[puritan lad]

jlay,

The problem with the circle analogy is that it is not biblical. You are adding to the Scriptures that which is not there. When scripture uses the term "foreknowledge" (four occurances), it always refers to people, never to their actions, faith, or whether they choose to join some abstract, predestined "circle". God's "foreknowledge" is not simply mental ascent to future truths (for he "foreknows" the wicked in that sense as well), but is properly defined as "Divine Favor". What we see in Scripture, over and over again, is that God predestines and foreknows people. In fact, he predestines everything. As one great theologian pointed out, there is no such thing as a maverick molecule. Everything that happens in the universe has been decreed, predestined, and sovereignly worked out by God. This is what Scripture teaches, not Greco-Roman theology (whose gods, btw, were anything but sovereign).

I'm curious as to what you would have to say about this, Puritan Lad. It's taken from the article I posted a couple pages back in this thread.

I have read much of Boettner's works. I beleive that quote to be a common Arminian strawman. Calvinists do not believe (nor does Boettner) that "blessings in the natural realm - sunshine, rain, etc. - were secured for mankind by Christ's death". Certainly the quote given by Boettner in this article does not say that. The Doctrine of Common Grace has nothing to do with atonement.

I have no other issues with the article until this:

"Anyone may enter that covenant by becoming a Christian. It is open-ended.

How does one become a Christian without the new birth? He cannot. And the effects of Christ's atonement is not open-ended. Christ died to save a particular people, he saw His labor, and was satisfied with the results. (and it is specific only, not general). The call is general, the actual atonement is specific. Christ's work was an actual plan, not a hopeful possibility.

You may feel free to do whatever you wish with the article as it is indeed "fair game." I hope others will feel free to examine it and consider it as fair game and examine it on it's own merits.

I did. It has been weighed in the balances and found wanting.

[puritan lad]

One problem with "open-ended" anything in theology is what it does to prophecy in general. Here is a question that I love to ask to non-Reformed futurists:

Can the AntiChrist be saved, or is he predestined to Hell?

[Maytan]

'The' Anti-Christ? I thought an Anti-Christ is anyone opposed to Christ?

Don't you mean 'the beast'?

Just wondering.

[puritan lad]

'The' Anti-Christ? I thought an Anti-Christ is anyone opposed to Christ?

Don't you mean 'the beast'?

Just wondering.

In Futurism, especially Dispensationalism, they are pretty much universally treated as one and the same. I have yet to meet one who thought otherwise.

[Canuckster1127]

Maybe he'll have to go stand in the same corner with Judas? (couldn't resist ....)

[August]

Ah, Paul, along with others, was undoubtedly chosen or 'elected'. And - quite rightly - paul felt pretty damn privalaged. Question: Is not the destiny of every man in his own hands by the very fact he can choose to believe in Jesus and thus choose life? I'm doing this on my phone, August, so may now be as thourough

If our destiny is in our own hands, why not just move it one step back and choose life by choosing not to sin, instead of choosing to believe in Christ? Surely if your destiny is with yourself, you don't have to choose Christ to live, the keeping of the Law is also a choice you can make. What then makes one person choose Christ and another not?

I would also like to know what you believe about faith. What is faith? Do you believe that you can stop having faith? Where does faith come from?

[August]

Can God choose to provide grace and salvation sufficient to save everyone but then allow men and women to make their own choice? Does omnipotence deliberately not exercised in a proactive, direct manner, mean that omnipotence is no longer an attribute of God?

The question is not whether God can, but whether He did. The distinction between a "pro-active, direct manner" and any other manner is semantic...either God saves people or God saves people with some help from themselves.

God can make provision for all, knowing that not all will respond (even knowing specifically who will or will not make such a decision) and still withhold His hand by His choice in a complete or even limited manner.

Again, is that what God does or not? If God knows how people will respond, and they do so even if He "withholds His hand", why do they respond in the manner that He knew they would? What is it that differentiates one from the other? Remember, God has withheld His hand completely or in part, yet the people made the choices He knew they would. Why did they make the choice?

That's one of my beef's with Calvinism. In many instances it appears to reduce God to the sum of His individual attributes and lock God into a logical construct which then limits God in His Sovereignty. Before it's brought up, no, that doesn't mean God can do "wrong" or that God can contradict Himself. But that recognized there are near infinite possibilities within the internal restraints of God to actively determine a thing and one of the things He is perfectly capable of doing is willing Himself not to determine all things and allow Man, in part as a reflection of the image of God, the power of choice and consequences for those choices up to and including salvation if he so chooses.

Calvinism doesn't reduce God to anything. No man-made belief system can do that. But what we can do is look at the sum of what revelation shows, and try to understand that in a manner that reflects God, not the whims and wishes of man. Man is made in God's image, but remember that that image was tainted so by sin that Christ had to give His life to remove the sin...no small measure. It required the very blood of God to remove sin.

I will ask you the same question then. If man can choose his own salvation, why doesn't he? Why do you need Christ? You can choose to keep the law. Why don't you? Even if you put in a good effort that should count for something, right? If God allows you to choose, then He can't punish you for trying real hard and just making one or two small wrong choices? What makes you choose Christ or not choose Christ?

There are passages of Scripture that come at this issue from different directions. Calvinism (and Arminianism for that matter too) often chooses one approach over the others and then constructs arguments to strengthen those passages that they believe proves their point while diminishing or negating those that that indicate something other than what fits into the tight theological box that they've created and by which they interpret the Bible and the world around them.

This is something that is repeatedly asserted but not shown. For that matter, everyone brings some sort of presupposition to the table, including those that claim they don't. I will stand behind what my presuppositions are, as I believe them to be Scriptural and God-honoring, as others do with theirs.

God's bigger than that. I believe it's entire possible that in certain contexts God deliberately limits or restrains Himself in order to create the possibility of choice on the part of man as a moral free agent. Along with that, the consequences of those decisions are permitted as well. The amazing thing to me, is that this in the end doesn't threaten God's ability to bring about a conclusion that is in keeping with His will in the first place.

That is a contradictory statement. Man's moral free choices are subject to a nature of sin. If you wish to appeal to the mystery of the contradiction, that is fine. Man does make choices every day, and face the consequences. But does that extend into man's eternal destiny?

Recognizing the self-limitation of God can be taken further than is justified, and example of which might be extreme forms of Open Theism. It can easily go too far in the other direction as well as in the case of hyper-calvinism which basically embraces elements of Greek and Roman philosophical determinism. Then too, it quite possible, even probably that we're looking at more than two options and a grid if you will, rather than just sliding on a linear scale.

The question is where God limits Himself. If God loves man, why would He limit Himself when it comes to saving or condemning them? Why would He allow some to make the wrong choice? Is His love self-limited in that respect?

That's one of the reasons I shy away from a lot of this type of argumentation (doesn't always have to be an argument but it seems to gravitate in that direction over time more often that not as the parties involved dig in and entrench themselves believing that their construct provides an answer for every challenge.

I think that it is not a matter of answering every challenge, it is to arrive at a consistent belief of who God is, how He acts and what He wants us to know. One cannot worship, love and pray to a God that one doesn't know.

Anyway, that's just my quick "in and out" on the matter and I hope it helps rather than confuses the matter, although I'm quite sure it may not sit well with any of the perspectives expressed here on the thread thus far.

It does not matter whether it sits well or not. What matters is whether it brings us closer to what we believe the truth to be about God and man.

[August]

To say that they were predestined based on their foreseen faith is also doesn't work. If God looked into the future and saw that certain people will believe and others not, then it becomes as deterministic as a decree. God's foreknowledge of the future must be absolutely true, or He is not omniscient. One cannot consistently hold that God has foreknowledge about who will believe, and then also believe that He is trying to save everyone. God cannot attempt to do what He knows will not happen, that is not His character.

It all gets back to how you are defining predestination. And there is an explanation that isn't this and also isn't Calvinistic. I think I shared it with you on another thread, but I never heard any response. Obviously, Calvinists have a very specific way in which they define predestination.

If God says, everyone who stands inside the circle will be saved, then who will be saved? Is it predetermined? Yep. But is it preprogrammed? Nope.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed (those in the circle) in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
Eph 1:4 even as he chose (those in the circle) in him before the foundation of the world, that (those in the circle) should be holy and blameless before him. In love
Eph 1:5 he predestined (those in the circle) for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
Eph 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed (those in the circle) in the Beloved.
Eph 1:11 In him we (in the circle) have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,

We must understand that in the Calvinists view, faith is NOT a response to God to go and stand in the circle. But in fact is a pre-programming of who will be standing in the circle. I'm very interested to hear how this example violates the character of God.

jlay, sorry I did not respond on the other thread. As a business owner I have spurts of time available to discuss here.

My question is simple...how do you distinguish between predestined and "pre-programmed"? If something is bound to happen, and God knows it will happen, then it is going to happen. No chance of it not happening. What then is the cause of it happening? If it is not God causing it to happen, then what is? If God is not determining eternal destinies, then who or what is?

If the character of God is faithfulness to those He chooses, mercy to whom He desires and love to His elect, then working things so that they are saved is in His character. God elects people, He foreknew people and called them by name, He redeemed them (Is 43). Is there any way they will not end up with God? Is that their choice, or God's choice?

[August]

Here's an article I found that helps to raise some of the issues and questions that I have particularly with hyper-Calvinism but also with Calvinism.

http://chuck.severnchristian.org/bible/ ... minism.htm

There is much to respond to here. But let's be clear about one thing. The writer of that article has not studied reformed theology, the history and doctrines in any kind of detail. There is simply very little truth in what he construes reformed theology to be. If one is going to level a public criticism of something, then it should be represented accurately and fully. Since he assumes the opposite to start with, he does exactly what he accuses reformed theologians of doing...bringing philosophical and extra-Biblical assumptions to the table, hence:

When I encountered the Arminian viewpoint in a Church History class, I readily saw that Arminius was on the same road as I and, if I had to choose one system or the other as the better formulation of what the Bible is saying, I would be more comfortable in the Arminian camp.

It is therefore not surprising that he reaches the conclusions he does, even though he admits never having had any teaching of Calvinism.

[Maytan]

My question is simple...how do you distinguish between predestined and "pre-programmed"? If something is bound to happen, and God knows it will happen, then it is going to happen. No chance of it not happening. What then is the cause of it happening? If it is not God causing it to happen, then what is? If God is not determining eternal destinies, then who or what is?

This is very similar to the ever-so-famous "If God knows what we'll do, is there really free-will?"

Let's use my life, for example.

1. I've chosen to follow God, because the Bible tells me to.
2. According to the Bible, those who follow him (are saved) are predestined.
3. Therefore, I was predestined to choose to follow God.

This seems like a contradiction, does it not? Yet, it isn't. I made the choice; yes, but I was predestined to make such a choice. Am I looking at this correctly?