Leaving behind Calvinism

[bogeydogg]

I read a lot of posts on here from folks defending the reformed/ Calvinist position and I want to have a talk about that. I used to believe in this way of explaining salvation but have since left it behind. A lot of folks think that there are only two ways to understand salvation that either one is a Calvinist or an Arminian but I think both are wrong.

To begin Calvin taught that man in the Fall was born guilty of sin. I am not talking about total depravity here, but rather the state into which men are born. Calvin taught that men are born guilty of sin and really the rest of his thought sort of flows from it. Think about it, it a man is born guilty of sin then he will be so affected by the Fall that he will never be able no matter what to ever have faith in God unless God intervenes and saves him. Calvin would of course refer to many verses in the Bible to back this thought up but he conveniently passes over this one

Romans 1 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although* they knew God, they did not honor him as God* or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened

Now if Calvin is right and man in his Fall is utterly incapable of perceiving God then Paul is a liar and there is just no way around it.

So why did Calvin teach this way? Because he was a Platonist.

I realize of course that Calvin’s defenders will say nay but look at the facts. Plato taught that physical matter was evil and incapable of communing with God. Calvin taught that in the Fall the Imago Dei was destroyed and for this reason man was incapable of communing with God. No matter how it is dressed up in fancy theological speak the unavoidable conclusion of this type of assumption is Platonic in nature. And Calvin did arrive at a Platonic view of men, he was an utter pessimist.

But…

If man is incapable of communing with God because of the destruction of the Imago Dei is the Fall then how do we understand Paul’s assertion? In short we can’t.

But is there another way to think about this?

I think the answer lies with Augustine.

Augustine taught that in the Fall man was corrupted, and this corruption is manifest in that man’s affection is bent inward instead of outward. That is man loves himself before anything else. BTW if you doubt this then please take a long hard look at the cult of self esteem passing itself as Christianity nearly everywhere you look.

Man, loving himself above anything else, then is only capable of loving something for what he can get out of it. That is we do not love our spouses rather we love money and sexual pleasure and company. We do not love our children but rather we love to be able to brag about our parenting skills in athletic/ scholastic/ social achievements shown in our kids. We do not love our friends we love having more than Bob. Talk to any guy/ girl and in short order you will be asked what you do or how many kids you have. Everything is a competition where we all have to measure up against each other because we think, in our heart of hearts, that the world revolves around us.

With this bent heart we can clearly perceive the things of God, but we can’t get anything out of God so we concoct idols instead which allow us to “make a decision for Jesus” or “invite Jesus into our hearts” etc etc. That is why we can see God but worship us it is because we have a bent heart like our father Adam.

And this is a sin of which we are actually guilty, not one we are born with and thus cannot possibly be responsible for.

Can we save ourselves? No. Furthermore we wouldn’t if we could because we gain no selfish prize in worshipping God. Therefore all of those verses the Calvinist uses to proof text our depravity when instead understood in light of our affections still make perfect sense but do not conflict with other Scripture.

Of course this is a brief synopsis and I cannot think of all the questions which may arise, but I would really like to talk about this because i think it is important.

God bless

 

[MarcoPolo]

I think the Romans passage you cite is more of an apologetic against the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement than total depravity, no?

 

[bogeydogg]

I think it is an apologetic against the Calvin doctrine in general. Once the underpinnings of the doctrine are knocked what remains?

 

[Salvatore123]

bogeydogg,

The primary difference between the Catholic theology of redemption/salvation and the fundamental Protestant version is that we divide the two - Protestants combine them.

Catholic Salvation

In other words, Catholicism teaches that when Adam and Eve sinned against God, they committed an infinite harm - not necessarily because of the gravity of the actual act, but because of WHO they offended: an infinitely all loving being. Well, humans cannot “make right” infinite harms because we are finite creatures. To both “balance” the wrong brought into the world by Adam and Eve, as well as show the extent of God’s love for man, God became man in the form of Christ. and through Christ’s Passion, he redeemed mankind. The word “redeem” simply means to “buy back”.

In the case of Christ, Christ’s Passion, which consisted of suffering and death, was a sacrifice to God on behalf of man by God who had become man. This suffering served as an atonement to God for man’s original sin. As stated above, man, as a finite being, could never redeem or atone for an infinite harm. But an infinite being could - and thus God chosen his Son, an infinite being, to accomplished the atonement. This part of Catholic “salvation theory” is redemption and is distinct from salvation per se.

Once Christ redeemed mankind (and this redemption operated in favor of all men, whether they wanted it or not), the gates of Heaven were reopened and all of mankind was again “eligible” for a chance to make it to heaven.

But it is through our salvation that we are united with God to experience the beatific vision. But as the NT states - man must work out his salvation “with fear and trembling”.

Now how does a Calivinst explain that someone who is supposedly “predestined to salvation”, needs to fear and tremble about his salvation? He doesn’t - he ignores it and goes on to some other isolated verse in the Bible that they always take out of context.

Fundamentalist/Calvinist Salvation

Man plays no role in his salvation. Only certain people are part of the “elect”. Man can do nothing to become part of the elect, as the elect are predestined. One is either saved or one is not.

The above may sound simplistic, but it really does boil down to those few sentences. Man IS described as depraved and completely dependent upon God’s grace for his salvation, and no matter what man does, man’s actions play no role in his salvation.

Of course, the fundamentalist/Calvinist position completely ignores the common sense question: If only the “elect” will enter heaven, and nothing we can do will help us to become part of the elect, then why do anything at all? Why not just live your life as you please - it won’t matter, as you are either part of the elect or you are not.

The fundamentalist/Calvinist will retort that a man who is truly saved and part of the elect will never stray and act in a manner inconsistent with being saved. But this begs the question: how does one know what he will do from now until the time he dies? And how does one know one is part of the elect, and thus, part of the group who will be saved?

Again - they have no answer to that question.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Nice Post Salvatore.

 

[Salvatore123]

Thank you, ESMD.

 

[bogeydogg]

I think the Calvinist would reply it is unimportant to know who the elect are but rather that all should strive as though they were among the elect… then would argue that having striven they have proved they are of the elect.

IOW they have made a distinction without a difference. Having ushered works out the front door they then welcome it in the back door calling it perseverance instead of cooperation.

Good post.

 

[Crumpy]

I don’t qualify for the general discussion here, because, with 12 years of Catholic education, I can’t explain my way out of a paper bag on this subject.

BUT

I have made a first reading on some interesting, and probably, relevant books. Vol 2 of Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI, VERBUM DEI, apostolic exhortation on the Word of God in the Life of the Church by Benedict XVI, and Vol 6 of Letter and Spirit, Scott Hahn, general editor.

These documents explain in a 21st century Catholic context, how the CC interprets scripture. The key point is that the Church interprets scripture as the early Church did, which is how Jesus Christ interpreted scripture. (That’s a pretty big claim.)

So, I’m just skeptical of how this “reformer” or that one interprets bits of scripture. I’m glad that others can explain it more theoretically.

It is common, as recently in London last week, for people to say that their wedding day is the most important day in their life. I find that odd. The day that seems most important to me, looking back, was the day of my Baptism in the Catholic Church. That was a pivotal day in my life and I celebrate it more and more.

C’mon home to the Catholic Church.

 

[Timonator348]

The first time I talked to a full blown Calvinist about this the way he was talking about he was one of the “elect” and was therefore “saved” it seemed very prideful and conceited but from their perspective it’s God’s fault because they were chosen and they can do nothing on their own. He also has made the analogy that we are all sheep charging towards a cliff and God, in his mercy, reaches out and saves the elect sheep from death. The Calvinist view unfortunately views Scripture through a very narrow lens and it seems the more scriptural arguments I present the more they are forced to ignore. Again, just my personal experience.

 

[Muze]

Calvin’s hero was Augustine, and adopted many ideas from him… Calvinists today still cite the Council of Orange.

And, yes, both were Platonists.

 

[josephback]

The first time I talked to a full blown Calvinist about this the way he was talking about he was one of the “elect” and was therefore “saved” it seemed very prideful and conceited but from their perspective it’s God’s fault because they were chosen and they can do nothing on their own. He also has made the analogy that we are all sheep charging towards a cliff and God, in his mercy, reaches out and saves the elect sheep from death.

Calvinism is prideful, but when you’re in it you don’t really realize that. The word “elect” takes on a special meaning and it just gets all messed up. I remember falling for Calvinism because of its denial of free will. Growing up I always had trouble with “faith alone” because I was told by Arminian preachers that we had a free will. It never made sense, and for some reason I never considered that perhaps “faith alone” wasn’t true. I was pretty much ripe for the picking. I now know Calvinism is a blasphemous theology, but it seems so reasonable at first. It’s a trap!

 

[sambos671]

I don’t think Calvinism describes the world realistically. The first observation of Calvinism with regard to the world is that mankind is Totally Depraved. He cannot conceive of good for its own sake. Therefore every action taken is corrupted. However scritpures, and reality shows us that men can not only conceive of a good but act on it for its own sake. Man as much as he is a sinner can still do good. I attribute this to the image of God which he made us. Its not Gone or is it less than the sin that seperates us from God. Thus men can recognize “good” when he sees it. The second observation is that Calvinism denies a free will. Save the will is encumbered with sin thus it cannot choose freely. Since you have no will you cannot choose God according to Calvin. Thus Jesus did not come into the world to die for the world but for the elect within the world. Well, it goes against scriptures that teach us Jesus came into the world. And the ultimate problem if you have no will you can’t be held accountable for your actions. Thus man ultimately is being held accountable not for their sins but for Adam’s which scriptures also teach against.
I just don’t think its a good reflection of reality.

 

[Salvatore123]

joseph and sambos,

What you both say are dead on correct about Calvinist theology.

1. First, it is indeed a trap, because once you convince yourself that you are either part of the elect or not (how a man can do such a thing completely baffles me), you are “stuck” with your lot in life and nothing you can do or say will ever change that. What a horrible way to live . . .
2. To call man “totally depraved” is to mock God’s creation, especially in light of God saying that he created man in his own image. No one is saying that we are God because of this statement by God. But we Catholics are also not saying that we are so “bad” that we are beyond help. We were until Christ died. Once that redemptive act occurred, it became up to us to - as the bible says - “work out our salvation with fear and trembling”. Why be frightened about one’s salvation if one is part of the elect? Again - more evidence of the “trap”.
3. Sin is evaluated very similarly to the manner as in which the law views the commission of a crime. To sin and to commit a crime requires (1) an act, (2) knowledge (or the ability to know/learn) that one is performing a wrongful act in violation of God’s or man’s law, and (3) performing the act without being under duress of any kind. Now how in the world can someone be held responsible and “sentenced” to either hell or jail, if one did not act under free will? Generally, they cannot.
4. Finally, this business of “once saved, always saved” is, to me, the most prideful and vain belief a man can have, and it goes against Jesus’s very teaching that only the Father can look into a man’s soul. I would NEVER be so presumptuous to say something along the lines of, “Well I KNOW I am going to heaven.” Where does God fit into such a picture? Claiming “I am saved” is the perfect example of the ipse dixit fallacy that teaches “it is true simply because I say it is true”.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Calvin’s hero was Augustine, and adopted many ideas from him… Calvinists today still cite the Council of Orange.

Calvinists cite Augustine only for the paragraphs of his they like, but not all of Augustine (such as when John Calvin admitted that not all times in Augustine’s life did he agree with Calvin’s idea of the sovereignty of God, cf. Institutes 22.8 and Augustine’s Sermon 169).

And likewise, I have encountered Calvinists who cite snippets of the Council of Orange, but not the concluding paragraph on the efficacy of baptism that enables a soul to perform salvific acts with the “cooperation of Christ.”

In other words, for a Calvinist, Augustine and Orange only have authority when they say something the Calvinist thinks agrees with what he already believes.

 

[guanophore]

I think the Romans passage you cite is more of an apologetic against the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement than total depravity, no?

It is used both ways but it is true that Calvin denied what Paul shows here, that man is capable of perceiveing and understanding (prior to being regenerated)the will of God for himself, and is under a moral obligation to confrorm . Calvin denied that man is able to, or interested in seeking after God and finding HIm.

The idea of being separated from God by sin, though, is Apostoic (though Latins call it original sin), and is very clear in Rom. ch. 7.,

Acts 17:26-28
26 And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation, 27** that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him**. Yet he is not far from each one of us, 28 for

‘In him we live and move and have our being’;

as even some of your poets have said,

‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

The OP is correct if we are totally depraved, rather than the image of God in us being wounded but able to function in a limited manner ,then it would be impossible for the unregenerate to “feel after him and find HIm”. The Gk here has the sense of moving ones hands about in a dark room trying to locate something one cannot “see”.

God does not command that which He does not also enable us to do:

Acts 17:29-30
e gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man. 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent,

If everyone is called upon to repent, then God has given sufficient grace and ability to each one to repent.

 

[guanophore]

I think the Calvinist would reply it is unimportant to know who the elect are but rather that all should strive as though they were among the elect... then would argue that having striven they have proved they are of the elect.

I agree with you but I think the statement needs to be extended into perseverance.Calvanists say that the elect are always given the gift of final perseverance, therefore, if they fall away from the faith, they were never one of the Elect.

  IOW they have made a distinction without a difference. Having ushered works out the front door they then welcome it in the back door calling it perseverance instead of cooperation.

Good post.

This is necessary, since they are basing the ability of mankind upon the doctrine of total depravity. It is impossible for man to “cooperate” with grace because there is nothing in us that is ready, able, or willing to do so. Even after regeneeration, it is only God at work in us to will and to do, and none of ourselves.

monergism.org has a good summary of this perspective. Calvanists and Catholics will agree that the good tree bears good fruit, and that the evidence of a person being “in
Christ” is their deeds. Calvanists, though, deny that we can fall from that state of Grace.

Heb 6:4-8
4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. 7 For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. 8 But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned.

They will say that this was written to the Jews, and does not apply to the regenerate Christian.

 

[josephback]

I fell for Calvinism as the logical Protestantism. I could never wrap my head around faith alone with free will admitted. It should be noted one of the errors of Calvinism is that it re-defines the word “elect”, to mean something the Bible doesn’t support. If you read this thread and you’re a Calvinist please consider the following:

Elect in the Calvinist thinking means “predetermined saved person”, unconditionally chosen without merit or other qualification. Elect or “chosen” in the Bible is best illustrated in the passage in Luke where Jesus chooses his disciples. THere’s a great crowd, and He picks His disciples out from among them, like the Shepherd seperating the sheep from the goats. All are called to participate in the kingdom, but only a few will actually succeed in their race for the prize. Only a few will persevere. “Many are called but few are chosen.” In another sense Jesus chose His disciples from the beginning, and so that leaves a great mystery between God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. But preDESTINING people to salvation is not the same as preDETERMINING who gets saved. God doesn’t abuse His creation. No one is predetermined as going to hell. Something to think about

 

[bogeydogg]

Calvin’s hero was Augustine, and adopted many ideas from him… Calvinists today still cite the Council of Orange.

And, yes, both were Platonists.

Augustine was a platonist in his youth but abandoned it later on. He was very careful to lay the trouble for mens sin in their hearts and not their flesh. You should read* on teaching christianity* for more on this.

 

[bogeydogg]

joseph and sambos,

What you both say are dead on correct about Calvinist theology.

1. First, it is indeed a trap, because once you convince yourself that you are either part of the elect or not (how a man can do such a thing completely baffles me), you are “stuck” with your lot in life and nothing you can do or say will ever change that. What a horrible way to live . . .
2. To call man “totally depraved” is to mock God’s creation, especially in light of God saying that he created man in his own image. No one is saying that we are God because of this statement by God. But we Catholics are also not saying that we are so “bad” that we are beyond help. We were until Christ died. Once that redemptive act occurred, it became up to us to - as the bible says - “work out our salvation with fear and trembling”. Why be frightened about one’s salvation if one is part of the elect? Again - more evidence of the “trap”.
3. Sin is evaluated very similarly to the manner as in which the law views the commission of a crime. To sin and to commit a crime requires (1) an act, (2) knowledge (or the ability to know/learn) that one is performing a wrongful act in violation of God’s or man’s law, and (3) performing the act without being under duress of any kind. Now how in the world can someone be held responsible and “sentenced” to either hell or jail, if one did not act under free will? Generally, they cannot.
4. Finally, this business of “once saved, always saved” is, to me, the most prideful and vain belief a man can have, and it goes against Jesus’s very teaching that only the Father can look into a man’s soul. I would NEVER be so presumptuous to say something along the lines of, “Well I KNOW I am going to heaven.” Where does God fit into such a picture? Claiming “I am saved” is the perfect example of the ipse dixit fallacy that teaches “it is true simply because I say it is true”.

It is interesting that you would notice the legal aspects of Calvin’s teaching on “grace”. He was a lawyer and sought a very analytical explanation for all things and freely admits in the Institutes that some of his conclusions are man’s wisdom attempting to understand the councils of God.

 

[bogeydogg]

It is used both ways but it is true that Calvin denied what Paul shows here, that man is capable of perceiveing and understanding (prior to being regenerated)the will of God for himself, and is under a moral obligation to confrorm . Calvin denied that man is able to, or interested in seeking after God and finding HIm.

God does not command that which He does not also enable us to do:

Acts 17:29-30
e gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man. 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent,

If everyone is called upon to repent, then God has given sufficient grace and ability to each one to repent.

I have always found it interesting that the Calvinists claim they have grasped Augustine’s theology while ignoring that the great controversy of his life (the Pelagian) stemmed from Augustine’s teaching of “God command whatsoever you will, grant whatsoever you command.”

You have grasped it perfectly. We are blind and stumbling and in need of rescue because of the sin which we have committed which rescue God graciously grants us in Christ Jesus our Lord. The strange thing is that Pelagius saw this as slavery and Augustine taught that in Christ’s rescue of the sinner is the greatest freedom. That is God acts on our behalf to free us, but not from a bondage where there is no free will, but rather from a bondage of a perverted will which is then made right with God in Christ’s salvation.

The irony is that the Calvinist in arguing against free will ushers in and legitimizes Pelagius claim of slavery which the Church anathematized 1600 years ago. And yet they claim this is classical christianity.

God Bless