Some general questions about Calvinism.

[Maytan]

Lately, I've been trying to wrap my head around this. I have to agree with Puritan Lad in that, in many ways, Calvinism seems to fit the scriptures better than the other interpretations/view points I know of.

However, there's some things I don't quite get. I'll try to do this orderly, to make it easy to respond to.

1. If God chooses his elect, then why do we need to share the good news with other people? Certainly, God drawing a person to Christ is enough to get them to seek God on their own, no? If it's not, then how is God even drawing them to begin with? Calvinism, to me, seems to make missionary work and the like (of any kind) to be unnecessary.

2. If man only has the ability to come to God if God draws them, then how is there *really* free will? I know this is probably a common point brought up regarding this topic, so I expect it's a simple one to answer. As I understand it, Calvinism basically says we don't have the ability to follow God unless he chooses us. And for that matter, if God is drawing someone, do they really have the ability to reject him? This, to me, seems to mean we don't have the ability to openly accept or reject Christ, basically meaning forced love. Which means, basically, no free-will in regard to one's salvation. If choosing God isn't really a choice at all, what was the point of creating a world in which Adam had the ability to disobey God? If he's going to essentially force those who he chooses to come to him, why not force Adam to come to him to begin with? Then everyone would have been saved, no? And, for that matter, why *wouldn't* God want everyone to be saved? Why would he not just draw everyone to him? Does God really wish for some people to be eternally damned? Once again, I'm sure this is a common point that comes up under topics such as these, so I'd imagine there's some fairly easy responses here.

[zoegirl]

Lately, I've been trying to wrap my head around this. I have to agree with Puritan Lad in that, in many ways, Calvinism seems to fit the scriptures better than the other interpretations/view points I know of.

However, there's some things I don't quite get. I'll try to do this orderly, to make it easy to respond to.

1. If God chooses his elect, then why do we need to share the good news with other people? Certainly, God drawing a person to Christ is enough to get them to seek God on their own, no? If it's not, then how is God even drawing them to begin with? Calvinism, to me, seems to make missionary work and the like (of any kind) to be unnecessary.

because belief is the means through which the elect are saved and we don't know who the elect is. There is no stamp on their forehead...we are to spread the good news...we don't go up to people and ask "gee are you one of the elect?"

I have always appreciated how Piper describes it...http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-lib ... -calvinism

[Maytan]

Thanks for the link! I found it a very good read, though I only read the first half and skimmed over the second. (for time's sake, I'll be sure to go back and read the entirety later on tomorrow if time permits)

Still, I feel left with the questions in my second mentioned item. I don't understand why God would only choose some of us, and for that matter, why he would give some of us the 'gift of irresistible grace', while others are given 'such a willing spirit'.

[B. W.]

Thanks for the link! I found it a very good read, though I only read the first half and skimmed over the second. (for time's sake, I'll be sure to go back and read the entirety later on tomorrow if time permits)

Still, I feel left with the questions in my second mentioned item. I don't understand why God would only choose some of us, and for that matter, why he would give some of us the 'gift of irresistible grace', while others are given 'such a willing spirit'.

My opinion is that 'Efficacious grace' is a better term to use than that of 'Irresistible grace'

But again I like old words no one uses anymore, Anyways, efficacious, fits the concept better and allows the wiggle room needed to answer your questions and assuage your concerns.

With that - silense for now...
-
-
-

World English Dictionary

efficacious (ˌɛfɪˈkeɪʃəs)

— adj -- capable of or successful in producing an intended result; effective as a means, remedy, etc

+++++

ef·fi·ca·cious   /ˌɛfɪˈkeɪʃəs/
[ef-i-key-shuhs]

–adjective -- capable of having the desired result or effect; effective as a means, measure, remedy, etc: The medicine is efficacious in stopping a cough.

++++++

World English Dictionary

irresistible (ˌɪrɪˈzɪstəb ə l)

— adj
1. not able to be resisted or refused; overpowering: an irresistible impulse ...

[puritan lad]

Lately, I've been trying to wrap my head around this. I have to agree with Puritan Lad in that, in many ways, Calvinism seems to fit the scriptures better than the other interpretations/view points I know of.

However, there's some things I don't quite get. I'll try to do this orderly, to make it easy to respond to.

1. If God chooses his elect, then why do we need to share the good news with other people? Certainly, God drawing a person to Christ is enough to get them to seek God on their own, no? If it's not, then how is God even drawing them to begin with? Calvinism, to me, seems to make missionary work and the like (of any kind) to be unnecessary.

That's a common criticism, but actually reflects a heresy known as "hyper-calvinism". Consistent Biblical Calvinism not only recognizes that God ordains the ends, but also ordains the means. (That's why Calvinists pray as well.) God has predestined his people to be conformed to the image of His Son, but he also has ordained the "foolishness of preaching" as the means by which they will do so. The sovereignty of God is the basis for faith in our evangelistic endeavors as in receiving answers to prayer. We present the general call of the gospel to all (since we don't know who the elect are), but realize that the elect will be the ones who truly receive it.

2. If man only has the ability to come to God if God draws them, then how is there *really* free will? I know this is probably a common point brought up regarding this topic, so I expect it's a simple one to answer. As I understand it, Calvinism basically says we don't have the ability to follow God unless he chooses us. And for that matter, if God is drawing someone, do they really have the ability to reject him? This, to me, seems to mean we don't have the ability to openly accept or reject Christ, basically meaning forced love. Which means, basically, no free-will in regard to one's salvation. If choosing God isn't really a choice at all, what was the point of creating a world in which Adam had the ability to disobey God? If he's going to essentially force those who he chooses to come to him, why not force Adam to come to him to begin with? Then everyone would have been saved, no? And, for that matter, why *wouldn't* God want everyone to be saved? Why would he not just draw everyone to him? Does God really wish for some people to be eternally damned? Once again, I'm sure this is a common point that comes up under topics such as these, so I'd imagine there's some fairly easy responses here.

When we talk about "free will", we need to carefully define what we are talking about. Our wills are free from external coercion, but they are not free from our internal nature (we are "slaves to sin"). As Calvin described it, we are "willing slaves, but slaves nonetheless". So Calvinists do believe in "free will" (the Westminster Confession dedicates an entire 9th Chapter in dealing with this). I would go so far as to agree with Arminians that we have the "free will" to choose Christ. But what we lack is the ability. So scripture teaches...

All men may (permission) come to Christ...
All men should (responsibility) come to Christ...
All men must (necessity) come to Christ...
All men are commanded (duty) to come to Christ...
No man CAN (ability) come to Christ, unless...

As to why God doesn't give the blessed revelation of Salvation to everyone, that's a tougher question that required digging into the secret knowledge that only God possesses, and how that balances his "desire" vs. His decrees. All we can give as an answer is what Scripture reveals. "..even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight" (Luke 10:21).

[Byblos]

As to why God doesn't give the blessed revelation of Salvation to everyone, that's a tougher question that required digging into the secret knowledge that only God possesses, and how that balances his "desire" vs. His decrees. All we can give as an answer is what Scripture reveals. "..even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight" (Luke 10:21).

Theologians from all ages and confessions have attempted to answer that question. Haven't heard a good answer yet other than: Thy Will Be Done.

[puritan lad]

As to why God doesn't give the blessed revelation of Salvation to everyone, that's a tougher question that required digging into the secret knowledge that only God possesses, and how that balances his "desire" vs. His decrees. All we can give as an answer is what Scripture reveals. "..even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight" (<A class=lbsBibleRef href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Luke%2010.21" target=_blank lbsReference="Luke 10.21|NASB">Luke 10:21</A>).

Theologians from all ages and confessions have attempted to answer that question. Haven't heard a good answer yet other than: Thy Will Be Done.

Right on. I think that any attempt to answer that question is futile, forcing us to move beyond what Scripture tells us, and can be dangerous. We don't know the basis for election, but we do know that God's Word won't return void, but will accomplish it's purpose, not being dependent upon man's response. In the end, God's purpose is to glorify Himself.

"The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." (Deuteronomy 29:29)

[B. W.]

As to why God doesn't give the blessed revelation of Salvation to everyone, that's a tougher question that required digging into the secret knowledge that only God possesses, and how that balances his "desire" vs. His decrees. All we can give as an answer is what Scripture reveals. "..even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight" (<A class=lbsBibleRef href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Luke%2010.21" target=_blank lbsReference="Luke 10.21|NASB">Luke 10:21</A>).

Theologians from all ages and confessions have attempted to answer that question. Haven't heard a good answer yet other than: Thy Will Be Done.

Right on. I think that any attempt to answer that question is futile, forcing us to move beyond what Scripture tells us, and can be dangerous. We don't know the basis for election, but we do know that God's Word won't return void, but will accomplish it's purpose, not being dependent upon man's response. In the end, God's purpose is to glorify Himself.

"The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." (Deuteronomy 29:29)

That's why I like the phrase 'Efficacious grace' better because God's Word will not return void, will accomplish His purpose, not being dependent upon man's response as it remedies the response, and thus God's purposes are glorified in Himself alone.
-
-
-

[Maytan]

That's a common criticism, but actually reflects a heresy known as "hyper-calvinism". Consistent Biblical Calvinism not only recognizes that God ordains the ends, but also ordains the means. (That's why Calvinists pray as well.) God has predestined his people to be conformed to the image of His Son, but he also has ordained the "foolishness of preaching" as the means by which they will do so. The sovereignty of God is the basis for faith in our evangelistic endeavors as in receiving answers to prayer. We present the general call of the gospel to all (since we don't know who the elect are), but realize that the elect will be the ones who truly receive it.

Ah, I get it.

When we talk about "free will", we need to carefully define what we are talking about. Our wills are free from external coercion, but they are not free from our internal nature (we are "slaves to sin"). As Calvin described it, we are "willing slaves, but slaves nonetheless". So Calvinists do believe in "free will" (the Westminster Confession dedicates an entire 9th Chapter in dealing with this). I would go so far as to agree with Arminians that we have the "free will" to choose Christ. But what we lack is the ability. So scripture teaches...

All men may (permission) come to Christ...
All men should (responsibility) come to Christ...
All men must (necessity) come to Christ...
All men are commanded (duty) to come to Christ...
No man CAN (ability) come to Christ, unless...

As to why God doesn't give the blessed revelation of Salvation to everyone, that's a tougher question that required digging into the secret knowledge that only God possesses, and how that balances his "desire" vs. His decrees. All we can give as an answer is what Scripture reveals. "..even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight" (Luke 10:21).

This makes sense to me, but I'm a little bewildered as to how I would back this up in an argument.

I have various friends who 'were' Christians (note, I realize they never *were* really Christians, and their understanding of the Bible shows it), the one argument that comes up frequently is "Why hasn't God revealed himself to me, as he has to you?" Now, for the most part, I guess you could say I've been an Arminian; so, my usual point is that they hadn't attempted to seek him out. I treated salvation kind of like a gift. Even if you buy a gift for someone, said person isn't forced to accept it. Apply that on a universal scale (IE: God bought the gift of salvation for everyone, but not everyone accepts it), and that was pretty much my argument. Given that I think I've had a change of heart in this area, my argument would become that God bought the gift of salvation for those he chose to buy it for. Where do I go from here, though? I suppose I say, these people will either reject or accept the gift according to God's will, correct?

Of course, their next point will probably come to what I mentioned, "Why hasn't God chosen me", or "Why doesn't he give the gift to everyone". Which, of course, I'll have to respond the same way both you and Byblos did. This might not strike to popular with them, but I'm not attempting to warp things into being appealing.

My opinion is that 'Efficacious grace' is a better term to use than that of 'Irresistible grace'

But again I like old words no one uses anymore, Anyways, efficacious, fits the concept better and allows the wiggle room needed to answer your questions and assuage your concerns.

With that - silense for now...

I agree with you; 'Efficacious' seems to tie this entire thing together quite well. So, basically, it comes down to what Byblos said:

Theologians from all ages and confessions have attempted to answer that question. Haven't heard a good answer yet other than: Thy Will Be Done.

His Will will become accomplished, and that's pretty much the end of that. I digress, in hindsight I think I was trying to overstep my bounds; to the point where I was trying to understand the mind of God.

[puritan lad]

I have various friends who 'were' Christians (note, I realize they never *were* really Christians, and their understanding of the Bible shows it), the one argument that comes up frequently is "Why hasn't God revealed himself to me, as he has to you?"

That requires a multi layered response. First, I would not approach the unbeliever by starting with the Doctrine of Unconditional election. There are many Calvinists who actually shy away from evangelizing by such statements as "Christ died for you". They would consider that a presumption upon God's election, but it is actually nothing short of the universal call of the gospel. Jesus called all to come to Him, while at the same time knowing that only His sheep would follow Him. How much more should we, not having this knowledge of who the sheep are, universally call the world to Him?

Secondly, God has revealed Himself to the unbeliever. In fact, He has done so "plainly". (Romans 1:19). In the self-deception of their own darkened minds, however, they are ignorant of this knowledge. They both "know God" and "don't know God" at the same time. The best course of action, besides prayer, is to expose the many ways that they rely on God while denying His existence. The unbeliever lives in God's universe, and cannot even function without acknowledge Him in some way.

There are many ways to approach this, via knowledge, ethics, uniformity in nature, etc. But, whatever the approach, the key is prayer, and a presentation of the gospel, for it alone can save.

[Maytan]

Well said. I appreciate all the help, thank you!

[jlay]

First, I would not approach the unbeliever by starting with the Doctrine of Unconditional election. There are many Calvinists who actually shy away from evangelizing by such statements as "Christ died for you".

Yep,
Even as a dispensationalist I wouldn't do such. For one, the scripture warns that the preaching of the cross is foolishness to them that perish. Offering the cross to someone who is impenitent is in fact foolish.
When a person says, 'why hasn't God revealed Himself too me," you need to ask them what they mean. A lot of times people expect God to perform for them. Everyone, as PL pointed out, has revelation of God. If God in fact created, then all of creation testifies. In fact, the ability to have a cogent thought, 'why hasn't God revealed Himself to me?' is in fact revelation. But, people will suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Even what is plain. And Paul says, they are without excuse.

Is it that they can't come to Christ, or that they won't come to Christ?

[Maytan]

Ah, that seems like a rather good way to respond to such a question. I'll be sure to give it a shot the next time I'm asked such a thing.

[Silvertusk]

This to me is dangerous theology and bordering on Gnosticism where having hold of secret knowledge allows you to be saved. God wants all people to be saved

1 Timothy 2.
I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. 7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.

So freewill is freewill here. I think any reference to the fact that God chooses his "elect" is simply along the same lines as God hardened Pharoh's heart. It is an expression - that simply refers to God's middle knowledge - but this in no way infringes on people freewill and the choice of receiving salvation.

SIlvertusk.

[zoegirl]

we have no secret knowledge....God only knows. WE are to extend invitations to anyone and we are in no way somehow privy to God's thoughts.

If God only "knew" that Pharoahs' hear was hardened I would think the language would be pretty clearly different than God hardened his heart.

Nothing changes from an evangelical perspective. We are to be the means through the gospel message is spread and the invitation sent...