5 Points of Calvinism

[Reformed]

Catholics and Lutherans believe that their view of predestination is also rooted in the teachings of Jesus and Paul. I just find it strange that a teaching that is so central to the Christian understanding of salvation would not only be absent for 1500 years, but explicitly contradicted.

God Bless,
Michael

Well, you know… there tends to be progressive understanding of truth throughout time in the church, right? I don’t think the Church Fathers can be the determing factor of truth. As a Protestant, I would have to go back to the Apostles in Scriptures in comparison to the Church Fathers. I haven’t read much of the Church Fathers, but I know Protestants can quote Church Fathers to support their beliefs too.

 

[Reformed]

I suppose I will chime in here given Luther was addressed. Really, comparing Luther to Calvin on these points is probably misguided because Lutheranism operates under a completely different set of presuppositions going into theology when discussing it. For Lutherans, all of theology begins with Christ crucified. By studying that, we can then work back to election, sovereign grace, etc. For Calvin and Calvinists, theology begins with the supposition that God is sovereign. It then works it’s way to the cross and the meaning of it. This creates a huge gulf between how election and predestination is seen.

The total depravity of man is intrinsic to all of confessional Protestant Christianity. For Lutherans, this is no different. On this, Luther and Calvin are in complete agreement.

Unconditional election is agreed upon in its positive sense. For Luther, the topic of election only applies to believers. We believe because God has chosen us in Christ from the foundation of the world. Man is condemned to perdition based solely on his rejection of God and continued sin and unbelief. In no way has God chosen them for this end, rather, He has done all that is necessary to secure their salvation on the cross, but they will not believe.

Limited atonement is rejected entirely as unbiblical.

Irresistable grace is agreed upon inasmuch as the elect will come to faith at their appointed time. However, for the non-elect, anytime the gospel is preached the Spirit is working to convert them. However, either one of two things happens here. Either the person rejects the gospel when it is given in the preaching of the word…this is also different from Calvinism. Calvinism states that in the preaching of the word, for the non-elect, the Spirit is not doing anything to convert the reprobate. They only receive an outward call. In Lutheranism, both the non-elect and the elect receive an outward and inward call…but only the elect will always come to faith. In the second case, the non-elect will believe for a time and then fall away. Which gets to perseverence…

The elect will always persevere to the end. The non-elect may believe for a short period and then fall away. The non-elect will even be justified if they possess faith for a season, but will lose justification when they lose their faith.

That’s really good stuff. I could be Lutheran if the better local church was Lutheran in my area. How do you see sovereign grace? Are you familar with John Owen’s famous riddle on limited atonement? Aren’t the better theologicans throughout church history Reformed as compared to Lutherans?

 

[sandusky]

MarcoPolo:

Perhaps you and Reformed could offer a definition of double-predestination.

Simply stated, double-predestination states that God predestines some of mankind to eternal life, and the rest to eternal damnation.

MarcoPolo:

And I still would like to know if God does not impute the Spirit on a person, does that effectively render that person to hell because he is not elect?

First of all, God does not impute the Spirit.

Nevertheless, those who reject the Spirit will be damned.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

How well do you know the moderators? Can you bring that thread back? It doesn’t appear too supportive of Roman Catholicism if the moderators delete a thread which challenges a central issue of the Roman Catholic understanding of the Christian Faith.

I do not know these moderators like I did at the other forum. I have no authority on these boards to bring back a deleted thread. Someone could have blown up and caused the thread to have disappeared entirely before we had the chance to see what the cause was. I’m only assuming, I have no idea what happened to it.

Can you address the points I’ve brought up in my previous post please?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Do you know a Roman Catholic posted that you can believe in double predestination as a Roman Catholic? Please see the predestination thread and Hitler.

I don’t know what another Catholic poster said. I asked you and sandusky for the correct definition of double-predestination. Does Calvinism teach that those who are not given the Spirit of regeneration, end up in hell?

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Thanks for sharing. I think you will find that the United States of America is rooted in Calvinism. From the Pilgrims and the Puritans to the church at Capital Hill, to the first Great Awakening in America, you will find us steeped in Calvinism… On the other hand, the United States is not rooted in Roman Catholicism.

You’re welcome! And to show that I’m not out to hide or suppress embarrassing comments about Catholics, I would point out that Jefferson could also be critical of Catholics. Just type in “Jesuits” or “Catholic” for example in the sidebar search box of the book cited above. Do the same when you have time with other works of Jefferson. I for one, am not in the least bit afraid of historical facts.

Now John Adams too could be quite critical of both Calvinists and Catholics. For example, against the Catholics he wrote:

I have lately read Pascal’s letters over again, and four volumes of the history of the Jesuits. If ever any congregation of men could merit eternal perdition on earth and in hell, according to these historians, though like Pascal true Catholics it is this company Loyola. Our system however of religious liberty must afford them an asylum. But if they do not put the purity of our elections to a severe trial it will be a wonder.

• To Thomas Jefferson, Quincy, May 6, 1816. Jefferson’s Works, vol. 15, p. 17.

books.google.com/books?id=f1g8AAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA17&dq=%22If+ever+any+congregation+of+men+could+merit+eternal+perdition+%22&lr=&as_brr=0&client=firefox-a

But one wonders what “historians” he was reading. That Protestants have much distorted Catholic history is another little known fact, as I believe you will come to discover from an open minded examination of the following.

U.S. Catholic History: A Factual Survey on the Catholic Foundation of America, by Adam S. Miller, Tower of David Ministries.

Discovering A Lost Heritage: The Catholic Origins of America, Adam S. Miller, Marian Publications, Inc. 2006, ISBN: 9781411620360
lulu.com/content/300464

Here’s a "limited preview from Google books:

books.google.com/books?id=y2eUwTchlc0C&pg=PP1&dq=9781411620360&client=firefox-a&sig=ACfU3U07HY9dIwyc_yO9isWsEnI2UjNdvA

And have you ever heard of the so-called Centuriators of Magdeburg?

I strongly urge you to also read A Brief History of No-Popery which also discusses, among other things, the “Centuriators” (it’s a bit long, but I think you’ll find it well worth your time!).

I quote just one paragraph:

The Centuriators combed history for scandals and calumnies designed to prove that the whole body of Catholics had always been the foulest of humans. This would befit a Church which Luther had proclaimed as: ‘‘The Whore of Babylon”. They specialised in misrepresentation and in mutilated and forged documents. Between 1559 and 1574, thirteen volumes of the history were published. The story of a ‘Pope Joan’ was typical of its output, and the alleged finding of 6000 heads of children in a convent fishpond so as to explain why convents were built close to large lakes and swamps. The stories were propagated in foul language, which probably aided rather than hindered their circulation.

Aah ha…see what happens when you leave the Doctrines of Grace: Here is what Thomas Jefferson believed:

Well, I was already familiar with Jefferson’s opinions on the Bible. But I should point out that this is exactly what happens when one practices “private interpretation,” and rejects the teachings of the one Church, founded by Christ in the first century, and not the sixteenth!

But just out of curiosity, on the basis of what or whom should Jefferson’s’ opinions of the Bible be rejected in favor of, say, those of Calvin or Luther?

 

[mikeledes]

Well, you know… there tends to be progressive understanding of truth throughout time in the church, right? I don’t think the Church Fathers can be the determing factor of truth. As a Protestant, I would have to go back to the Apostles in Scriptures in comparison to the Church Fathers. I haven’t read much of the Church Fathers, but I know Protestants can quote Church Fathers to support their beliefs too.

Yes, there is a progressive understanding of truth. However, a teaching as clear as perseverance of the saints - and so fundamental to the Christian understanding of the nature of salvation - should have left a trace in Christian history in the 1,500 years before John Calvin. Like I said, it is not only absent, it is explicitly contradicted by the early Church Fathers. In fact, the early Church Father Calvinists cite the most is Augustine, and
Augustine did not believe in this doctrine. Moroever, the Council of Orange, which is often referenced by Calvinists, also did not endorse this doctrine and in fact contradicted it.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[MarcoPolo]

Simply stated, double-predestination states that God predestines some of mankind to eternal life, and the rest to eternal damnation.

And the ones He predestines to life are given the Spirit of regeneration. And the ones He predestines to hell are not given the Spirit of regeneration.

Correct?

 

[MarcoPolo]

While there are similarities between Calvinism and Augustinianism, the two are not identical. For one, Augustine did not teach that saving grace was limited only to the elect and he is also had a different understanding of regeneration from that taught by Calvinism. In chapter 21 of the Gift of Perseverance, St. Augustine wrote:

** Of two pious men, why to the one should be given perseverance unto the end**, and to the other it should not be given, God’s judgments are even more unsearchable. . . . had not both been called and followed him that called them? And had not both become, from wicked men, justified men and both been renewed by the laver of regeneration?

God Bless,
Michael

This is a good post. To really be Augustinian, wouldn’t you also have to embrace the Pope? And I am glad to see you further clarified the differences in post 54.

 

[Reformed]

I don’t know what another Catholic poster said. I asked you and sandusky for the correct definition of double-predestination. Does Calvinism teach that those who are not given the Spirit of regeneration, end up in hell?

I think the best source to study what many Calvinists believe in double predestination is here: There are several articles to read and study. It’s a pretty difficult topic.

monergism.com/directory/search.php?action=search_links_simple&search_kind=and&phrase=double+predestination

 

[TriuneUnity]

That’s really good stuff. I could be Lutheran if the better local church was Lutheran in my area. How do you see sovereign grace? Are you familar with John Owen’s famous riddle on limited atonement? Aren’t the better theologicans throughout church history Reformed as compared to Lutherans?

I am familiar with John Owen’s riddle. It’s easily solvable, however as it is based on a false premise. Better theologians? Well, that depends. If their theology is wrong, it doesn’t matter how well and meticulous they state it. Arius was a brilliant theologian. He didn’t decide to wake up one day and become a heretic. The fact is, though, no matter how well thought through his belief was, it was still heretical.

Now, of course, I wouldn’t consider Reformed theologians to be heretics… just to point out that their theological knowledge is no evidence of whether what they teach is scriptural. Only Scripture itself is.

Besides, I wouldn’t grant that they were. How much Martin Chemnitz, Johann Gerhard, and C.F.W. Walther have you read?

 

[MarcoPolo]

I think the best source to study what many Calvinists believe in double predestination is here:

What do you think it means?

 

[Reformed]

I am familiar with John Owen’s riddle. It’s easily solvable, however as it is based on a false premise. Better theologians? Well, that depends. If their theology is wrong, it doesn’t matter how well and meticulous they state it. Arius was a brilliant theologian. He didn’t decide to wake up one day and become a heretic. The fact is, though, no matter how well thought through his belief was, it was still heretical.

Now, of course, I wouldn’t consider Reformed theologians to be heretics… just to point out that their theological knowledge is no evidence of whether what they teach is scriptural. Only Scripture itself is.

Besides, I wouldn’t grant that they were. How much Martin Chemnitz, Johann Gerhard, and C.F.W. Walther have you read?

I have not heard of the guys above. Here is the famous riddle.

The Riddle

God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for,

1. either all the sins of all men,
2. or all the sins of some men,
3. or some sins of all men.

If the LAST, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God entered into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: “If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?” [Ps. cxxx.2] We might all go to cast all that we have “to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty.” [Isa. ii. 20, 21]

If the SECOND, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world.

If the FIRST, why then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.”

But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not?
If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins.

Let them choose which part they will.
An extract from John Owen’s – The Death Of Death In The Death Of Christ, Book I, Chapter III –

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Perhaps you, too, should heed Jefferson and the Viriginia legislature at that time, and abandon your belief in transubstantiation.

And substitute it with what, this??

Such was the confusion of opinion in the sixteenth century reigning among Protestants over the Eucharist, that in the 1577, Christopher Rasperger actually published a book with the title:

Two hundred interpretations of the words: This is my Body, Ingolstadt, 1577

Christopher ( Christophorus, Christoph, Christophoro, Christophe ) Rasperger (Raspergero), [2]Latin text

Latin title: Ducentae paucorum istorum et quidem clarissimorum Christi verborum: Hoc est Corpus meum; interpretationes, [3]

German title: Zweihundert Auslegungen der Worte das ist mein Leib [4]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist#Books

For more on Protestant doctrinal confusion, see my post here.

And things have only gotten steadily worse for Protestants since those times!

“By their fruits ye shall know them” Matt. 7:16

 

[TriuneUnity]

I have not heard of the guys above. Here is the famous riddle.

The Riddle

God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for,

1. either all the sins of all men,
2. or all the sins of some men,
3. or some sins of all men.

If the LAST, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God entered into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: “If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?” [Ps. cxxx.2] We might all go to cast all that we have “to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty.” [Isa. ii. 20, 21]

If the SECOND, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world.

If the FIRST, why then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.”

But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not?
If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins.

Let them choose which part they will.
An extract from John Owen’s – The Death Of Death In The Death Of Christ, Book I, Chapter III –

Owen’s basic premise is false. His premise is that if Christ died for the sin of unbelief, no one can be damned by that sin. This is as illogical as saying that if I give you money, you must spend it, or if I give you a gift, you must enjoy it. Christ died for every sin of every person, including the sin of unbelief. No one could be forgiven the sin of unbelief unless Christ paid for that sin. The person who does not persist in the sin is forgiven. This is true of every other sin as well. Christ died for the sin of adultery, but the person who persists in the sin will be damned for that sin though Christ died for it.

The sins of an unbeliever damn him, not because Christ did not die for them, but because the very nature of unbelief is that it rejects that payment for sin. An unbeliever is damned for all his sins not just for the sin of unbelief, because he has no forgiveness for any of his sins, having thrown it away.

The most serious problem with Owen’s view is not just that his logic is bad, but that his logic leads him to reject the clear words of Scripture. When Owen rejects the answer “Because of unbelief” he rejects the clear words of Scripture. In John 8:24 Jesus says to the Jews who did not believe in him, “If you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.” Jesus died for all their sins including their unbelief, but the guilt of all their sins remained on them because they rejected their only Savior and the payment he made for them.

Hebrews 10:26 says that if we deliberately keep on sinning no more sacrifice for sins is left. Not that no sacrifice for sins was offered, but they do not have it because they have thrown it away.

2 Peter 2:1 says Christ redeemed the heretics who are damned for their heresy.

1 Timothy 4:10 says the very thing Owen rejects: Christ is the Savior of all, especially of those who believe. He is the Savior for all, but not all will benefit from it.

It is tragic when someone uses sound reason and logic to reject Scripture. It is even more tragic when someone uses unsound logic based on a false premise to reject the clear words of Scripture. This sadly is what Owen has done.

 

[Reformed]

I would not deny it and have witnessed some teachings that were incorrect myself. Those erroneous teaching came from “men” and I prayed for them. This does not mean I would abandon the Church (body of Christ) itself. There are other members of the Church that may need one who questions such teachings so they can remain on the narrow path.

I don’t see either as irreconcilable.

On another thread you started (it disappeared overnight ) there was unity, on a discussion of faith versus faith plus works, once we openly discussed the semantics that actually separated us. I think alot of differences are based on semantics.

That leaves us with authority and I feel I’ve somewhat addressed that above and in my previous post. That being we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater (specifically abandon the Church Christ created because of the actions of men). Surely you wouldn’t throw away your Bible because someone misinterpreted something from it and preached it as Gospel (not stating anyone here has done this, using the Bible as an example of God’s gift not to be abandoned just like His Church).

As a part of the body of Christ our obligation is necessary to help those who are not “developed” spiritually. You know where I’m going to go to in scriptures to show authority given to Peter. Peter being the one who appointed St. Ignatius…

BTW, post specifically what part of Jude you were referring too. Jude only has one chapter and from verse 3, I got to stand firm in your Christian faith.

I’m always open to talking, in an effort to unify through Christ. With that said, let’s keep in mind that differences of what some say from the same faith does not represent the faith at large. That is, because two Catholics say different things does not make Catholicism false. If that were true, Christianity itself is in danger.

I’m not sure which question you wanted me to adress. Please ask again and I will try to answer it.

 

[Reformed]

Owen’s basic premise is false. His premise is that if Christ died for the sin of unbelief, no one can be damned by that sin. This is as illogical as saying that if I give you money, you must spend it, or if I give you a gift, you must enjoy it. Christ died for every sin of every person, including the sin of unbelief. No one could be forgiven the sin of unbelief unless Christ paid for that sin. The person who does not persist in the sin is forgiven. This is true of every other sin as well. Christ died for the sin of adultery, but the person who persists in the sin will be damned for that sin though Christ died for it.

The sins of an unbeliever damn him, not because Christ did not die for them, but because the very nature of unbelief is that it rejects that payment for sin. An unbeliever is damned for all his sins not just for the sin of unbelief, because he has no forgiveness for any of his sins, having thrown it away.

The most serious problem with Owen’s view is not just that his logic is bad, but that his logic leads him to reject the clear words of Scripture. When Owen rejects the answer “Because of unbelief” he rejects the clear words of Scripture. In John 8:24 Jesus says to the Jews who did not believe in him, “If you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.” Jesus died for all their sins including their unbelief, but the guilt of all their sins remained on them because they rejected their only Savior and the payment he made for them.

Hebrews 10:26 says that if we deliberately keep on sinning no more sacrifice for sins is left. Not that no sacrifice for sins was offered, but they do not have it because they have thrown it away.

2 Peter 2:1 says Christ redeemed the heretics who are damned for their heresy.

1 Timothy 4:10 says the very thing Owen rejects: Christ is the Savior of all, especially of those who believe. He is the Savior for all, but not all will benefit from it.

It is tragic when someone uses sound reason and logic to reject Scripture. It is even more tragic when someone uses unsound logic based on a false premise to reject the clear words of Scripture. This sadly is what Owen has done.

We both agree that it is a universal command to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for forgivness of sin. I see an actual propitation and atonement at the cross; therefore whatever sin was propitated, Christ paid for it. If Christ paid for the sin of unbelief for the entire world, then I believe all mankind would have to be saved. God would be unjust for pouring out His wrath on Christ for the sin of unbelief and pouring out his wrath on unbelievers in Hell for that same sin Christ paid for. I know it’s difficult, but that is what I believe. I still think Reformed writers like John Owen, John Calvin, and Jonthan Edwards see things much greater and clearer than other non-reformed theologians. I will read Luther’s Bondage of the Will. I should order it and get off the site for the day. Rejoice in the Lord everyone!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m not sure which question you wanted me to adress. Please ask again and I will try to answer it.

It wasn’t so much a question as to get your (name removed by moderator)ut on my view of everything I posted. It seems we were closing some “gaps” (differences). I was specifically interested in my comparisons between the Church and scriptures.

I did have a question on Jude 3 in that post.

I’ll check back in tonight. I’m in EMT school and they’re evening classes. I won’t be back until around midnight, Eastern time.

 

[Reformed]

It wasn’t so much a question as to get your (name removed by moderator)ut on my view of everything I posted. It seems we were closing some “gaps” (differences). I was specifically interested in my comparisons between the Church and scriptures.

I did have a question on Jude 3 in that post.

I’ll check back in tonight. I’m in EMT school and they’re evening classes. I won’t be back until around midnight, Eastern time.

I really like you and enjoy your comments. I do consider you a brother in Christ. Interesting, EMT as a paramedic/fire fighter? I evaluate fire departments and fire districts for a living. Jude 3 is contending for the Faith.

 

[mikeledes]

I
But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not?
If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins.

Let them choose which part they will.
An extract from John Owen’s – The Death Of Death In The Death Of Christ, Book I, Chapter III –

If I’m not mistaken, Calvinists believe that justification is extensive, namely, that at the moment one is justified, one’s past, present, and future sins are forgiven. Hence, this precludes any possibility for any sin to undo justification since all sins have been forgiven. Moreover, Calvinists believe - if I am not mistaken - that the gift of faith can never be lost - even while one may have backsliden into grievous sin, so one cannot go from being a believer to an unbeliever. Since justification is extensive and man’s nature has been so fundamentally changed that the gift of faith cannot be lost, no sin can cause a true Christian to fall into condemnation and they can never commit the sin of unbelief. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Hence, if everything stated above is true, then how is this reconciled with what Paul’s says in:

1 Corinthians 11:32

**32But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world. **

It states that the purpose of divine chastening is to prevent condemnation. Whether this chastening is efficacious in producing this result in every single Christian or not is another subject. The problem I find is that what Paul states above does not fit the Calvinist theological model. Chastening is meant to correct behavior and is hence a means of encouraging a Christian to progess in their sanctification (Hebrews 12:10-11). So it is preventative in the sense that it corrects behavior. Now if extensive justification and the impossibility of losing the gift of faith ensures that we will never be condemned, then why is divine chastening necessary to prevent condemnation? Extensive justification alone should be enough to ensure that salvation can never be lost. So why must God discipline us “so that we will not be condemned along with the world?” If this divine chastening is necessary to prevent some kind of sin that can cause of loss of salvation, then is that justification as extensive as Calvinists claim?

God Bless,
Michael